Preamble

The House met a half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

BRIGHTON MARINA BILL

BRITISH RAILWAYS (No. 2) BILL

To be read a Second time Tomorrow.

BRITISH RAILWAYS (FISHGUARD HARBOUR, ETC., VESTING) BILL

To be read a Second time upon Thursday, 9th February.

BRITISH TRANSPORT DOCKS (NO. 2) BILL

To be read a Second time Tomorrow.

DARTFORD TUNNEL BILL

Read a Second time and committed.

ESSEX COUNTY COUNCIL (CANVEY ISLAND APPROACHES, ETC.) BILL

GREATER LONDON COUNCIL (GENERAL POWERS) (No. 2) BILL

To be read a Second time Tomorrow.

GUILDFORD CORPORATION BILL

To be read a Second time upon Tuesday next.

LONDON TRANSPORT (No. 2) BILL

To be read a Second time upon Thursday, 9th February.

MANCHESTER CORPORATION BILL

To be read a Second time upon Tuesday next.

PORT OF LONDON BILL

To be read a Second time Tomorrow.

SAINT MARY-LE-PARK, BATTERSEA BILL

Read a second time and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills.

UNIVERSITY OF ASTON IN BIRMINGHAM BILL.

To be read a Second time Tomorrow.

WALLASEY CORPORATION BILL

Read a Second time and committed.

Oral Answers to Questions — NATIONAL FINANCE

Civil Service (Clerical Officer Grade)

Mr. Onslow: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer why he has authorised a lowering of the minimal formal qualification for entry to the examination for clerical officer grade.

The Chief Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. John Diamond): There never have been such qualifications.

Mr. Onslow: How, then, does the Minister explain Press advertisements which say that normally the Civil Service Commission insists on five O-levels as a minimum qualification, but that now the standards have been lowered? Is he utterly indifferent to the watering down that this involves in the Cvil Service?

Mr. Diamond: The hon. Member is on an altogether different point. The Question related to qualification for entry to the examination. The Answer I gave was precise and accurate. The point that the hon. Member is now on deals with the time after a candidate has been taken on—quite a different situation. There is a seven months' study of the candidate's behaviour in employment, which is reckoned to be equivalent to one further O-level.

£Sterling (Purchasing Power)

Mr. Stratton Mills: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the purchasing power of the £ sterling compared with 16th October, 1964.

The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. James Callaghan): On the basis of the change in the index of retail prices, the purchasing power of the £, taken as 20s. in October, 1964, was about 18s. 3d. in December, 1966, the latest date available.

Mr. Mills: Does not the figure cause the Chancellor of the Exchequer to hang his head in shame at that shoddy performance? Would he agree that while prices have been held back in the past eight months the flood gates of price increases will open substantially after July?

Mr. Callaghan: There is no doubt that the success of the Government's prices and incomes policy has had the effect of slowing down the increase in the cost of living very substantially. But although the retail price index went up by 9½ percent. in the period, total earnings went up by 11 per cent. But I see no particular value in that kind of progress, and hence the reason for the Government's present policy.

Mr. Lipton: Would not the purchasing power of the £ sterling be immensely improved if we did not give scores of millions of £s away every year to the Government of Northern Ireland?

Savings Certificates (Unit Trusts)

Mr. Stratton Mills: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will seek power to introduce a new type of savings certificate with one-third of the fund invested in unit trusts.

Mr. Callaghan: This is a variation on the idea of a State unit trust, and I will see that it is kept in mind during the studies of a State unit trust which are still going on.

Mr. Mills: Is it not desirable to associate the great mass of savers with the profitability of British industry? Will the right hon. Gentleman look carefully at this suggestion, particularly bearing in mind the importance of linking the National Savings Movement with some method of keeping pace with inflation?

Mr. Callaghan: I am all in favour of everyone being concerned with the progress of British industry but National Savings were originally designed to encourage people to invest in Government savings and there are feelings in the Movement and among the voluntary workers about that. I would not want to pressurise them if they decided that they preferred to stick to the traditional means of saving.

Mr. Grant: Why has the right hon. Gentleman taken so long to make up his

mind on the idea of a national unit trust to be run by the National Savings Movement? It is over two years since the Wider Share Ownership Council put the idea to him.

Mr. Callaghan: The Wider Share Ownership Council does not run the National Savings Movement. We are dependent on the voluntary work of a great many people in the Movement and I would not want to put pressure on them in this matter if they were wholly resistant to the idea.

Government Contracts (Racial Discrimination)

Mr. Winnick: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what progress has now been made in getting a clause inserted in Government contracts that will prevent any discrimination on grounds of colour and race; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Chapman: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what progress was made at the meeting of the National Joint Advisory Council on 25th January about a non-discrimination clause in Government contracts; and whether Her Majesty's Government now intends to introduce such a clause as regular practice and to associate the Race Relations Board with enforcement of it.

Mr. Callaghan: The best means of discouraging racial discrimination in employment were further discussed at the National Joint Advisory Council meeting on 25th January. The matter is now being considered further by the Government.

Mr. Winnick: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the T.U.C. and C.B.I. seem to have rejected such a clause? If so, is this not deplorable? Will the Government give a promise that, regardless of what the C.B.I. and the T.U.C. say, the Government will try and put such a clause into Government contracts?

Mr. Callaghan: My hon. Friend should ask my right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour about the discussions he has conducted with the C.B.I. and the T.U.C. It is for the Government to make up their own mind about what their attitude should be on the question of Government contracts, and we shall do so.

Mr. Chapman: Will my right hon. Friend go a little further and say that the Government's view is that it would be a very good thing if we could agree on the writing-in of such a clause into Government contracts, because this involves a principle on which hon. Members on this side feel very strongly.

Mr. Callaghan: I hope that the whole House feels strongly on the issue of principle. I believe that we do. But this is a matter for consultation with those concerned as to the best method of enforcing the principle and that is what these rather long-drawn-out discussions are about. I hope that they can soon be brought to a conclusion.

Mr. Ronald Bell: Will the right hon. Gentleman pay far more attention to the principle of freedom than to the obvious bias of his hon. Friends?

Mr. Callaghan: I am not in favour of freedom which excludes people from sharing the rights of all citizens in this country purely on ground of colour.

Customs and Excise (Electronic Data Processing Techniques)

Mr. Onslow: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what studies are being made of the application of electronic data processing techniques to the handling of air freight by Her Majesty's Customs and Excise.

Mr. Diamond: Customs are cooperating with the major United Kingdom and foreign airlines in a joint expert study of the possibilities of applying electronic data processing techniques to the handling and Customs clearance of air freight, with particular reference in the first instance to Heathrow Airport.

Mr. Onslow: When are these studies likely to be completed? Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that, if electronic data processing is not introduced, in about three years' time Heathrow air freight is likely to come to a standstill? May we have an assurance that, whatever action the Customs and Excise takes, it will remember that the new techniques should be fully compatible with those that the airlines want to use?

Mr. Diamond: It is because of this that we have taken the initiative in setting up this examination. It is

expected that the examination will take about 12 months to complete and the growth in traffic at London Airport is, as the hon. Gentleman indicated, likely to expand very considerably.

Mr. Hugh Jenkins: Would not the best way to prevent freight piling up at Heathrow be to build a new airport elsewhere?

Mr. Diamond: That is a different matter.

Statistical Services

Mr. Marquand: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will set up a Standing Committee on Social Statistics under the chairmanship of the Central Statistical Office, following the recommendation contained in paragraph 86 of the Fourth Report of the Estimates Committee on Government Statistical Services.

Mr. Kenneth Lewis: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what improvements he proposes to make in Government statistical services and in the status of the Central Statistical Office following the recommendations of the Fourth Report of the Estimates Committee on Government Statistical Services.

Mr. Diamond: I would refer the hon. Gentlemen to the reply given by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister to my hon. Friend the Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) on 20th January.—[Vol. 739, c. 156–157.]

Mr. Marquand: Will my right hon. Friend at least agree that the kind of economic planning to which this party is committed cannot be properly carried out unless we have a considerable improvement in the quality of the social statistics available to the Government? Will he, therefore, examine this part of the Estimates Committee's proposals very favourably?

Mr. Diamond: That is one element of the very full consideration which this important proposal merits.

Mr. Lewis: Since the National Plan foundered partly because the statistics were completely inadequate, if we are to have another plan should not the Government get the statistics right? This is an urgent matter.

Mr. Diamond: Certainly. It is always desirable to get statistics as accurate as possible.

Industry (Government Investments)

Mr. Ridsdale: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what net return he expects to receive from capital the Government invests in industry.

Mr. Callaghan: The return will vary according to whether the investments are undertaken for purely commercial purposes or for wider economic or social reasons.

Mr. Ridsdale: Is the right hon. Gentleman satisfied with the net return of of capital in the nationalised industries? Is he aware that the net return of the National Coal Board is ·03 per cent.? What is he doing about its?

Mr. Callaghan: The Government, since we took office, have put the finances of the National Coal Board and especially its capital structure on a much more satisfactory basis. The general progress and productivity in the industry is a matter for congratulation to all associated with it. In their policy for the nationalised industries generally, the Government are requiring that new investment should be seen to earn a reasonable return, although, of course, the older investment naturally cannot be expected in all circumstances to earn the same level of return.

Invisible Exports

Mr. Ridsdale: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the total amount the United Kingdom has received for invisible exports, in the last three months, respectively; and how this compares with 1964 and 1965.

Mr. Callaghan: £770 million gross credits in July-September, 1966, compared with £694 million and £760 million in the corresponding period of 1964 and 1965. Figures for individual months are not available.

Mr. Ridsdale: Will the right hon. Gentleman make these figures more readily and regularly available monthly, and not on a quarterly or half-yearly basis?

Mr. Callaghan: I have considered that suggestion but a large part of these figures are derived from sampling and I do not think that we should trouble industry more than necessary on this basis. But I emphasise the implication of the hon. Gentleman's supplementary question—that we should not judge our balance of payments figures solely on a month-by-month basis but take a longer view.

Northern Ireland (Government Contracts)

Mr. McMaster: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will review the percentage of all classes of Government contracts awarded to firms in Northern Ireland so that steps may be taken where possible to increase the percentage and rate of allocation of such work in order to stem the present alarming rise in unemployment.

Mr. Diamond: Firms in Northern Ireland, together with those in development areas in Great Britain, are already treated preferentially when Government contracts are awarded.

Mr. McMaster: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the recent very sharp rise of unemployment in Northern Ireland and of the anxieties in both new industries and in traditional industries, such as shipbuilding, due to Government restrictions and uncertainty? Will he take steps to see that the unemployment in Northern Ireland, which is higher than anywhere else in the United Kingdom, does not rise further sharply?

Mr. Diamond: I am aware of the circumstances and of the anxieties which exist. No one is less complacent about the situation than I. Nevertheless, I am sure that the iron Gentleman will want to know that the figures of unemployment in Northern Ireland in 1965 and 1966 were the lowest for the past 10 years.

Mr. McNamara: What steps is the Stormont Parliament taking to deal with the situation? Will my right hon. Friend guarantee that no Government contracts wil be awarded to any firms in Northern Ireland which employ any sort of political or religious discrimination in employment practices?

Mr. Diamond: My hon. Friend is quite right in drawing attention to the fact that


the prime responsibility rests with the Northern Ireland Government. As to the latter part of his supplementary question, my right hon Friend has already indicated the way the Government think on these matters.

Mr. Chichester-Clark: Leaving aside the irrelevance of the last supplementary question, will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind that a very serious situation could arise and that the unemployment rate might well rise next month to about 9 per cent.?

Mr. Diamond: Of course I have these problems very much in mind and realise that a serious situation could arise. But the Government are giving this continual thought in regard to both the new and traditional industries, mentioned by the hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. McMaster). But I would be the last to agree that it is irrelevant to have regard to the Northern Ireland Government's prime responsibility for unemployment.

Sir Knox Cunningham: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the economic policy of the United Kingdom rests with the Westminster Government? Is he also aware that the unemployment figure today in Northern Ireland is 8 per cent.?

Mr. Diamond: No one is unaware of our responsibilities, and I thought that had already indicated—perhaps the hon. and learned Gentleman did not hear—that the average monthly figure for unemployment of 31.2 thousand during 1966 was the lowest figure, bar 1965, for the last 10 years.

Mr. McMaster: I beg to give notice that, in view of the unsatisfactory nature of the reply, I shall seek to raise this matter on the Adjournment at the earliest opportunity.

National Savings

Mr Edward M. Taylor: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what net increase in National Savings took place in the year 1966; and what were the comparable figures for 1965, 1964, and 1963, respectively.

Mr. Callaghan: There was a decrease of £38 million in 1966 compared with increases of £74 million, £357 million, £315 million in 1965, 1964, 1963 respectively. This was owing to the large maturities

of defence bonds falling due last year. If undistributed interest and defence bond maturities are excluded there was an increase of £10 million in 1966.

Mr. Taylor: What steps is the Chancellor taking to rectify this alarming situation? Can he say in what previous year there was a net drop in National Savings?

Mr. Callaghan: We are already taking steps which are proving very successful, namely, the return on the National Savings Certificate which is just about the best return anyone can get on an investment at present. This is having a profound effect on the increase in National Savings during the course of the current year.

Mrs. Thatcher: Is the Chancellor satisfied with the present amount being saved through National Savings, bearing in mind that the amount invested at the end of 1966 was less than at the beginning of the year, and that this is the first time for a decade that this has happened?

Mr. Callaghan: As I said, if one excludes undistributed interest and defence bond maturities there was an increase in 1966. Of course I am not satisfied with the level of National Savings. I should like a higher level of saving all round, and that is one reason for the very substantial yield that anyone can now get on the National Savings Certificate.

Mr. Ian Lloyd: Has the Chancellor perchance seen the advertisement for Premium Bonds on many hoardings which says, "Have a flutter in the national interest" to which there is appended the phrase "You cannot lose"? Does he not think that this is a most lamentable bedfellow of the national interest, and would he not agree that in this form of national savings, as in any form of National Savings, the Government would be honest to indicate what the rate of return in real terms would be after depreciation of the citizen's capital has taken place?

Mr. Callaghan: This was introduced by Mr. Harold Macmillan when he was Chancellor and I am sure that he had full regard to all of these moral considerations. I am very happy to profit from this.

Taxation

Mr. Gresham Cooke: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer by how much the total burden of taxation, central and local, will have increased in the financial year 1966–67 as compared with the calendar year 1964.

Mr. Callaghan: On the basis of the Financial Statement, modified by the Regulator in July, total taxation would increase by about 30 per cent., as compared with an estimated increase of 11 per cent. in gross domestic product up to the end of the first half of 1966–67.

Mr. Gresham Cooke: Would the Chancellor confirm that this amounts to nearly £2,000 million a year? If this is so, does it not mean that it is about £2 a week per family, and is this not one of the most depressing things for the British public, depressing industrial production, and depressing overtime earnings and altogether having an unsatisfactory effect on the country?

Mr. Callaghan: I would not like to confirm the hon. Gentleman's figures but there was a deliberate choice made by the country, and the party opposite when it was in Government, towards the end of its life, that there should he a shift from an improvement in the private standard of life of the individual to an improvement in the collective standards, as expressed in housing, hospitals, and many other ways. It is the job of the Government to try to establish a balance between the improvement in the private standard of life and the improvement in the collective standard. Under the policies that have been followed we have made a very substantial shift, and it is a matter for constant debate as to how far that shift should go.

Mr. Barnett: Would not the Chancellor agree that the best way to prevent increases in taxation and to get the increase in social service expenditure that most of us want is to increase the rate of growth much more than we have in the past? Would he perhaps reverse the priorities that he has given to growth in the economy?

Mr. Callaghan: I absolutely agree that the first priority for the country is to

get a healthy rate of growth. We have run a deficit for so many years that we have had to enthrone the balance of payments as the prior objective. The country will be healthy only when we combine a balance of payments surplus, a substantial rate of growth and full employment, and this must be the constant objective.

Mrs. Thatcher: The Chancellor was very verbose in his last but one supplementary answer. In basic English did it mean that this Government planned an increase in taxation?

Mr. Callaghan: No. What it meant is what I said, that a different balance had been struck for the last three years, between improving the private standard of life and improving the collective standards of life. I hope that the hon. Lady can understand that.

Government Administration Services (Cost)

Mr. Gresham Cooke: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer by how much the cost of central Government administration services will have increased in the financial year 1966–67 as compared with the calendar year 1964.

Mr. Diamond: I regret that this information is not available in this form. The cost of Departmental administration associated with roads, housing, environmental services, law and order, fire services, education, health, social security, tax and other financial administration and the administration of the National Insurance Funds was £226·1 million in 1964–65, and is estimated to be about £38 million higher in 1966–67.

Mr. Gresham Cooke: Will the Chief Secretary look at the Estimates Memorandum, where it would appear that the costs of central administration have gone up 20 per cent. in the last two years? Is this likely to be added to by the Land Commission, S.E.T., and so on, and furthermore is that not a heavy increase?

Mr. Diamond: If the hon. Gentleman will study the Answer that I have given—I am sorry that it could not be as short as I would have liked—he will see that the growth for those two years was at the rate of 3½ per cent. per annum.

Selective Employment Tax

Mr. Wingfield Digby: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what would be the cost in a full year of abolishing Selective Employment Tax for the whole South-West area.

Mr. Diamond: This would not be administratively practicable. In the South-West Planning Region the tax is expected to yield £65 million in a full rear and premium refund payments will be about £49 million.

Mr. Digby: Will the right hon. Gentleman agree that this falls particularly unfairly on this region? Will he bear this in mind in future, on other occasions?

Mr. Diamond: While not necessarily agreeing with the first part of the hon. Gentleman's remarks, I am sure that he will realise that my right hon. Friend has said on many occasions that he has the effect of this tax very much in mind and is examining it.

Mr. Bessell: May I ask the Chief Secretary whether he appreciates that in an area of high unemployment, such as the South-West, this tax is a particular hardship? Will he therefore look at the at matter again in the light of the Government's stated policy on regional development?

Mr. Diamond: I will repeat what my right hon. Friend has said many times, that he is already looking at this in the light of regional development.

Dr. John Dunwoody: Would my right hon. Friend look at this problem with special regard to the situation in the development areas, not looking at the South-West region as a whole but realising that there are special problems of persistently high unemployment in some of the development areas in this region?

Mr. Diamond: My right hon. Friend has already said that he is looking at the whole of this problem, but my hon. Friend will realise that the Government's policy with regard to development areas is already a full and effective one.

Mr. G. Campbell: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will consider

the introduction of a value-added tax and the abolition of the Selective Employment Tax.

Mr. Callaghan: I see no close connection between the two. Value-added tax would be a general tax on consumption, whereas the Selective Employment Tax primarily combines a tax and a premium on employment designed to raise revenue, and in the long term to achieve a shift between services and manufacturing industries.

Mr. Campbell: Does the Chancellor recognise that the existence of a complicated Selective Employment Tax may hinder real reforms in taxation which entry into Europe will probably make necessary in indirect taxation?

Mr. Callaghan: All forms of taxation, I find, are complicated, but I would be inclined to have a wager with the hon. Gentleman that the value-added taxation is a darned sight more complicated than S.E.T.

Mr. Frank Allaun: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he has now reviewed the effect of the Selective Employment Tax on the employment of part-time workers, particularly the elderly, married and disabled and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Callaghan: The tax has been in operation for no more than five months and I am continuing to watch its effects on part-time and other workers.

Mr. Allaun: I thank the Chancellor for that reply, but may I ask whether he is aware that I know personally many old-age pensioners and part-time workers who have lost their jobs as a result? Is that a good thing either for the country or for the individual?

Mr. Callaghan: One of the difficulties about the present situation is that it is rather hard to distinguish between those who may lose their jobs as a result of this and those who may lose their jobs as a result of the measures taken in July. We must be careful to distinguish between the two before condemning the Selective Employment Tax—[Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman has said in the past that he supports the meaures taken in July. I hope that he is not ratting on that now.


As to the situation generally, I am considering the whole position, and any evidence which my hon. Friend the Member for Salford, East (Mr. Frank Allaun) has, I shall be glad to consider further.

European Economic Community (Tax System)

Mr. Channon: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will take steps to harmonise the British system of taxation with that prevalent among the Members of the European Economic Community.

Mr. Callaghan: It is too early to say what modifications in our tax system might be necessary to harmonise with the tax systems of the members of the European Economic Community.

Mr. Channon: Since the Prime Minister has told us that the Government mean business about their negotiations with the Community, would it not be a helpful thing if the Government were to show that they meant business by harmonising some of our taxation systems?

Mr. Callaghan: We might find that we have harmonised with something that was disharmonised. There are still a great many discussions to take place in the E.E.C. before they reach finality about the future of their tax system.

Mr. Whitaker: Will my right hon. Friend bend his efforts towards providing more money for social security, which in many respects is higher in all the Common Market countries than it is in Britain?

Mr. Callaghan: I am not sure about the general level of social security. There is a different wry of financing social security in the European Community, and it would be a matter for debate as to whether we should want to move over to that system.

Service Industries (Taxation)

Mr. G. Campbell: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he will change his policy which discriminates against service industries in taxation matters, in view of the adverse effects of this policy on large areas of Scotland and certain regions of England and Wales.

Mr. Diamond: The concentration of tax incentives and other benefits on manufac-

turing industry will encourage the growth of the economy as a whole, including Scotland and the development areas in England and Wales.

Mr. Campbell: Is it the Chancellor's intention to reduce the number of jobs in service industries in the north of Scotland?

Mr. Diamond: It is my right hon. Friend's intention to encourage the strength of the economy so as to benefit all people engaged in all parts of the country.

Mr. Nott: Is the Chief Secretary aware that when he said that the Government's regional policy was effective, he could not have been applying himself to certain regional development areas in the South-West, where unemployment is now higher than ever before? Does this really mean that the Government's regional policy is effective?

Mr. Diamond: I was referring, for example, to the fact that with regard to investment grants, the differential in favour of the development areas is very substantial indeed, 45 as again 25 per cent.

Government Expenditure

Mr. Ridley: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer the estimated percentage increase in Government expenditure for 1967–68 over 1966–67.

Mr. Callagham: I must ask the hon. Member to await the Vote on Account.

Mr. Ridley: Would the Chancellor agree, however, that the increase in Government expenditure should not be greater than the proportionate increase in the growth of the gross national product? Would not that be a principle with which he could agree for the coming financial year?

Mr. Callaghan: No, I would not agree with it for this year or for any other year. In some years it should exceed it, and in some years it should be less than it. We are reverting, I think, to a little discussion which we had on an earlier Question.

Royal Mint (New Site)

Mr. Edward M. Taylor: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will now make a statement on the site chosen


to build the proposed new Royal Mint; and if he will give an estimate of when the Mint will be in operation and how many persons will be employed by it.

Mr. Anderson: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what consideration is being given in the siting of a new Royal Mint to the claims of Wales as a suitable venue; whether ordnance factory sites have been considered; and whether, in view of the imminent closure of the Royal Naval Propellant Factory at Caerwent and the considerable acreage of land owned there by Her Majesty's Government, consideration will be given to its use as a site for the Royal Mint.

Mr. Abse: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in view of the serious congestion of the existing buildings of the Royal Mint and the need for expansion in the light of intended change to decimal coinage, what consideration is being given to the siting of a new Royal Mint in Wales; and whether, in considering any possible site, account will be taken of suitable sites in Monmouthshire where land is already owned by Her Majesty's Government.

Mr. Diamond: The difficult issues involved are under consideration but no decisions have been taken.

Mr. Taylor: Before arriving at a decision, will the right hon. Gentleman look closely at the Act of Union of 1707, which states clearly that Scotland joined with England only on the strict understanding that the Mint would be continued? Will he also bear in mind that unemployment in Scotland is now increasing at twice the rate for the rest of the country?

Mr. Diamond: I assure the hon. Member that all relevant matters will be taken into account, and, on his special request, the first matter which he has mentioned.

Mr. Anderson: Will my right hon. Friend similarly ensure that the claims of Monmouthshire are not overlooked in the light of its high unemployment figures and its easy communications, including the M4, the attractiveness of the area and the large amount of vacant land owned by the Government such as at Caerwent?

Mr. Diamond: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving me these further matters for consideration.

Mr. Abse: Will my right hon. Friend, without having to turn back to past centuries, look at the present conditions in Wales and note its great metallurgical tradition and, in particular, the special claims of the fine new town of Cwmbran, which can provide all the facilities which could possibly be needed?

Mr. Diamond: Nobody could be more impressed than I am with the relevance and weight of these various arguments.

Mr. David Steel: Will the Chief Secretary study the Government's plans for industrial development of the Borders of Scotland and note how the employment structure of the Mint would be eminently suitable for this part of the country?

Mr. Diamond: Notwithstanding what is becoming an apparent coincidence between the arguments from the respective constituencies, yes, Sir.

Taxation (Collection Costs)

Mr. Tilney: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what criterion he lays down as to the percentage which is reasonable for the cost of collection of a tax; and whether in his calculations he takes into account the cost to industry of personnel employed by industry solely for the collection of that tax.

Mr. Diamond: Because of the varying circumstances, there is no single criterion of cost. In considering taxation policy the Government take into account the costs falling on industry as well as those falling on public funds.

Mr. Tilney: Will the Chief Secretary bear in mind that the cost of the collection of tax in the United States of America is immensely less than it is in this country? Does he not consider that the collection of tax should be as simple as possible?

Mr. Diamond: I have always thought that the collection of tax should be as simple as possible and I put forward this argument when we introduced Corporation Tax.

Budget (Representations)

Mr. Dalyell: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, in the light of the written representations he has received from the Institute of Directors on


the subject of pre-Budget tax secrecy, he will have wider consultations before finalising his tax plans.

Mr. Callaghan: I receive representations before the Budget from a wide range of interests and when appropriate they are discussed with those who submit them. I welcome these representations and study them with great care, but I do not think it would be helpful to interpose a new body such as the Institute has suggested.

Mr. Dalyell: Does my right hon. Friend think that all the secrecy that surrounds Budget decisions is really necessary?

Mr. Callaghan: Broadly, yes, although I never like to over-emphasise the importance of the Budget in the economic scheme of things. It is a national sport in which most people disagree with me. On the question of confidentiality, however, I think that broadly it must be maintained.

Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: Will the Chancellor bear in mind in particular any representations which are made about the level of Corporation Tax, bearing in mind especially that any increase in the level of this tax would have a most damaging effect on the falling level of manufacturing investment?

Mr. Callaghan: That seems to me to be a rather different proposition, but I assure the hon. Member that I have had a great many representations on this and on many other matters.

Decimal Currency

Mr. Channon: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many protests he has received in the last month against the use of the pound unit for decimal currency.

Mr. Callaghan: Thirty-three.

Mr. Channon: Would not the Chancellor agree that whether or not he has received only 33 representations, there is overwhelming evidence that the vast majority of people concerned in this issue would far prefer the 10s. unit than the pound? Will the Government be prepared to reconsider their decision?

Mr. Callaghan: No, Sir, I do not agree with that on the basis of the correspondence which I am getting. I have

had an analysis made. I agree that there are a great many vocal lobbies on the subject—indeed, few subjects arouse greater interest—and a great many views are expressed to me. I think, however, that most of the case that is made for the 10s. unit is based on the initial period of three months and the question of how easy it will be to assimilate it. I do not think that when deciding the long-term nature and future of the coinage, it should be determined on the basis of three months' associability.

Mr. G. Campbell: Will the Chancellor reconsider very seriously the Treasury's present preference, because it would be expensive and would waste valuable time to have to make this change later when almost everyone in the country will be favouring a 10s. unit?

Mr. Callaghan: I am not aware of this. I know that there are a lot of lobbies about the subject, but my information is, and my correspondence shows, that the general public on the whole prefer the pound and the penny—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."]—I am referring to the general public—as the basis of any coinage that will exist.

Mr. Pavitt: Do the protests received by my right hon. Friend include those of the whole of the Co-operative movement, including 800 regional societies?

Mr. Callaghan: I cannot remember, but probably they do—almost certainly, I dare say, because the traders have made up their minds that the general public cannot understand the difference between 10s. and the pound. That is a view which, on the whole, the general public does not share.

Mrs. Thatcher: Are we to understand from the Chancellor's previous replies that his mind is not entirely closed on this matter and that he will reconsider it if sufficient evidence is presented to him that the 10s. unit would be preferable to the pound?

Mr. Callaghan: The Government have issued a White Paper on the subject and that is the Government's policy. So far, no arguments have been adduced that would warrant any suggestion that the Government should change their mind on this matter. A great deal of lobbying is going on, but the arguments stand. I hope that the advocates of the 10s. unit will read the debate in another place


yesterday, when they will see how strong is the case.

Mr. Channon: In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the reply, I beg to give notice that I will raise the matter at the earliest opportunity.

Disabled Employees (Taxation)

Mr. Barnett: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will grant a tax allowance in respect of a proportion of their home expenses, to disabled employees who do part of their work in their own home.

Mr. Diamond: I have noted my hon. Friend's suggestion, but my right hon. Friend cannot anticipate his Budget statement.

Mr. Barnett: Would not the Chancellor agree that this is another example of the unfair working of the effect of the tax system on employees as opposed to employers or self-employed under Schedule D, where this sort of expense would be allowed? When drafting his Finance Bill, would my right hon. Friend consider making this sort of relief to a section of the community who already suffer enough, and will he, perhaps, look also at the general question?

Mr. Diamond: My hon. Friend will know from his great and professional knowledge of these matters that this is a subject which has been looked at many times but that it has never been found possible to give this kind of relief.

Mrs. Knight: In framing his Budget proposals, will the Chancellor also bear in mind the problems of the disabled housewife, who bears many fiscal difficulties which could be relieved as well as physical disabilites which cannot?

Mr. Diamond: One of the problems is that the proposal put to me by my hon. Friend the Member for Heywood and Royton (Mr. Barnett) is only one of the many proposals which are quite properly canvassed in connection with disabled people.

Football Pool Winnings (Capital Gains Tax)

Mr. Fisher: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will seek to make football pool winnings liable to the Capital Gains Tax.

Mr. Diamond: No, Sir, because they are not derived from assets. We deal with football pools by charging Pool Betting Duty at the rate of 25 per cent. of the stake money.

Mr. Fisher: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in the United States of America, for example, every form of capital gain is subject to tax? Why, in this country, should furniture, pictures, and that sort of thing be considered fiscally, and apparently socially, more reprehensible than football pool winnings?

Mr. Diamond: I have already explained to the hon. Gentleman the reason why this, not being an asset, is not subject to Capital Gains Tax. I am most grateful to him for his reminder that in the United States there has been a Capital Gains Tax for a very long time, and with wider application. Perhaps he would remind his right hon. and hon. Friends of that.

Mr. Lubbock: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that when we on this bench introduced an Amendment to the 1965 Finance Bill to give effect to this proposal, the party of which the hon. Member for Surbiton (Mr. Fisher) is a member voted against it? In spite of that, will he reconsider his decision not to discuss the taxing of capital gains on pools win-nines since it is irrelevant from the point of view of the recipient whether it is an asset or not?

Mr. Diamond: It is not irrelevant, from the point of view of having a sensible and acceptable tax, that it should work on principles which are well understood, notwithstanding the inconsistencies of hon. Gentlemen opposite.

Regional Hospital Boards (Capital Allocations)

Mr. Thorpe: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will now allow regional hospital boards to carry forward unspent capital allocations from one year to the next.

Mr. Diamond: No, Sir, because this would be inconsistent with Parliamentary control of annual expenditure.

Mr. Thorpe: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that very often vital capital


projects in hospitals cannot be completed within a particular fiscal year, and a hospital board has to decide whether to return the money to the Treasury or use it for a minor project such as asphalting a back path or exit? Is not that sort of nonsense a piece of official bumbledom about which people in this country are getting rather angry and could he look into the matter?

Mr. Diamond: This matter has been looked at carefully and sympathetically lest the kind of undesirable attitude which the hon. Gentleman described should prevail. I assure him that when I look at these matters in carrying out my responsibility to this House in connection with public expenditure, I regard these problems with considerable sympathy.

Sir J. Vaughan-Morgan: Why is the quinquennial basis all right for universities, but not for hospital boards?

Mr. Diamond: That does not affect the issue. We are not talking about a quinquennial basis for planning. The grant to the University Grants Committee is subject to exactly the same kind of Parliamentary control as that applied to capital expenditure for hospitals.

Gold (Price)

Mr. St. John-Stevas: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement of Government policy on proposals to increase the price of gold.

Mr. Callaghan: I would refer the hon. Gentleman to my statement in the House on 17th January.—[Vol. 739, c. 31–4.]

Mr. St. John-Stevas: Whatever reservations I may have about the Chancellor's fiscal policy, I am not unsympathetic to the statement which he made. Will he take this opportunity of telling the House his views on how the London gold market is likely to be affected by today's French abolition of exchange control?

Mr. Callaghan: It is a little early to say, but the London gold market is well established. It serves a valuable purpose recognised widely throughout most countries, and I am sure that it will continue in that way.

Mr. Barnett: Will the Chancellor make it clear that playing about with the price of gold is a poor substitute for a new reserve currency?

Mr. Callaghan: I am happy to say that, once again; I have said it very forcefully in the past, and I have no hesitation in repeating that view.

Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, following the London meeting of the Group of Ten, there has been any change in the decision to exclude the price of gold from the agenda of the Group's discussions; and what steps the Government has taken to achieve agreement on a contingency plan for credit creation in time for the next annual general meeting of the International Monetary Fund.

Mr. Callaghan: The answer to the first part of the Question is "No Sir". As to the second part, I welcome the progress made so far towards a contingency plan, and shall continue to work for agreement on it.

Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: I thank the Chancellor for that most informative reply. In regard to his earlier statements about the price of gold, will he agree that they have been contradicted by a number of authoritative views, including those of the President of the Board of Trade? Will he not agree further that in the Group of Ten, the Treasury's traditional technique of hanging on to the coat-tails of the United States Treasury is hardly likely to commend itself to our prospective partners in the Common Market?

Mr. Callaghan: It would be unfortunate if anyone deduced from the hon. Gentleman's remarks that there is any general desire to increase the price of gold. As far as I know, the majority of countries in the European Economic Community are strongly opposed to it.

Oral Answers to Questions — RHODESIA

Mr. Marten: asked the Prime Minister if he will give further details of his proposal for an Act of Union with Rhodesia.

The Prime Minister (Mr. Harold Wilson): I have nothing to add to the Answer I gave on 20th December to a


Question by the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Sir W. Teeling).—[Vol. 738, c. 293–4.]

Mr. Marten: Did the proposals mean seriously that an elected Member from a multi-racial society in Rhodesia would have equal voting rights in this House to those of any other hon. Member here? Secondly, could the Prime Minister say why a great constitutional matter like this was not mentioned in this House before it was mentioned on television?

The Prime Minister: This was, in fact, mentioned originally in September on my right hon. Friend's visit, when the House was not sitting. It was just put to Mr. Smith on the basis, of course, that if we were to pursue the matter further—and it was one of a number of possible constitutional proposals—we would only be empowered to make such an offer if it had the agreement of all parties in this House.
On the first part of the Question, the position so far as I have worked it out—it would have meant discussions in this House—would have been rather similar to the position obtaining in Northern Ireland.

Sir Knox Cunningham: In dropping his idea of an Act of Union, why should it have been right to reach agreement on independence for Rhodesia on the basis of discussions on H.M.S. "Tiger", and yet now impossible and apparently wrong to reach any such agreement for independence except on the basis of one man, one vote?

The Prime Minister: We debated this fully just before Christmas. I remember the decision of the House, and I remember the support of the hon. Gentleman and others for the Rhodesian authorities in rejecting the "Tiger" agreement. It has become clear that, despite Mr. Smith's evident wish and, for a long time, his success in carrying his colleagues with him, he was overthrown by those extremists whom the hon. Gentleman and others opposite have been so active in supporting.

Mr. Maudling: Reverting to the Question of my hon. Friend the Member for Banbury (Mr. Marten), why was this very important constitutional matter omitted from the Prime Minister's state-

ment in the House on 5th December and reserved for his television broadcast next day?

The Prime Minister: It was not reserved for the television broadcast the following day. The House will realise the circumstances of 5th December. I was dictating that statement, and the House was kept waiting. I did not have time to prepare as full a statement as I should have liked. I would have been very happy to make it to the House, and should have done so.

Dr. Gray: Has my right hon. Friend initiated discussions with African leaders regarding the constitutional proposals which he has just mentioned and which he mooted in conversations with Mr. Smith?

The Prime Minister: This was mooted to Mr. Smith by my right hon. Friend the Commonwealth Secretary during his visit in September. It was rejected by Mr. Smith at that time and not pursued further. On H.M.S. "Tiger" I suggested to Mr. Smith—and he raised no objection to i—that, following the "Tiger" discussions, leaders of the African parties in Rhodesia should be invited to London for discussions with them as well.

Oral Answers to Questions — ADEN

Mr. Marten: asked the Prime Minister if he will define Ministerial responsibility for Aden.

The Prime Minister: My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary is the Minister responsible for the affairs of Aden.

Mr. Marten: Is the Prime Minister aware that the Minister responsible for the policy of quitting Aden without a defence agreement is causing a great increase in terrorism in Aden itself and also is directly responsible for unleashing a great terror compaign by Egyptian forces in the Yemen, amounting to bombing and possibly the use of gas? Would he reconsider his Arabian policy and refer this Yemen problem to the United Nations?

The Prime Minister: I do not accept in the slightest the hon. Gentleman's suggestion about the cause of the terrorist campaign in Aden, which has been continuing


for a very considerable time. The decision of the Government was debated and endorsed by this House, and hon. Gentlemen opposite really cannot go on every day talking about reducing Government expenditure and insisting on spending large sums of money on bases where we do not have the support of the local population.
With regard to the hon. Gentleman's further point about the Yemen, I very much agree with his concern, although not with his explanation of the causation. Such evidence as I have suggests pretty strongly that poison gas may have been used. This is a matter of deep concern, and it is a matter for Saudi Arabia, if she desires, to raise at the United Nations.

Mr. Sydney Silverman: Will my right hon. Friend arrange for the Foreign Secretary to give the House a much fuller and clearer explanation of the situation in Aden, which appears to many of us to be full of anomalies? In particular, will he say how many British troops are on active service in Aden, and in what circumstances they or any of them are subject to the civil courts in Aden administering laws other than English laws?

The Prime Minister: I will draw my right hon. Friend's attention to what my hon. Friend has said. If the House is desirous of having more information on this question, I am sure that my right hon. Friend would wish to give it. There are certainly some apparent anomalies which my hon. Friend has raised on a number of occasions, though I think the position there is clear. It arises to a considerable extent from the confusion over the position of Aden as a Colony and the position of South Arabia as a whole.

Mr. Heath: Will the Prime Minister recognise the deep and genuine anxiety that what has been happening in Saudi Arabia in the last few days, with Egytian bombing, will happen to the Federation if we withdraw without a defence agreement, and that it is not enough to make debating points about Government expenditure? This is a very real anxiety, and will the Government take it into account?

The Prime Minister: Of course, this anxiety has been expressed on a number of occasions, and of course this is a matter of concern for everyone in this

House, but the right hon. Gentleman must recognise that we cannot, and should not, be asked to go on indefinitely maintaining an international police rôle in all parts of the world where we have been doing it in the past. Our monetary, manpower and fiscal resources will not permit it, and it is really time that the Conservative Party came to terms with the events of the world in which we are living.

Mr. Hooley: Would my right hon. Friend agree that his argument applies with equal force to the Persian Gulf?

The Prime Minister: I did not catch the first few words of my hon. Friend's question, and I would be grateful if he would repeat them.

Mr. Hooley: Would my right hon. Friend agree that his argument applies with equal force to the Persian Gulf?

The Prime Minister: Yes, it would certainly apply, if we were to consider, in respect of the Persian Gulf, either for the Persian Gulf area itself, or, as hon. Gentlemen have suggested, the whole of that area from the Persian Gulf, trying to maintain the police rôle which we have decided this country cannot and should not occupy.

Sir S. McAdden: May I ask the Prime Minister whether we can deduce from his statement that he believes in concentrating our defence forces in those territories where we have the support of the local population, and if so, why we are moving out of Malta?

The Prime Minister: The position of Malta was explained, and we shall be debating this, I hope, in a day or two. It was explained in the Defence White Paper approved by this House last year that we intended to stay in Malta, but not to go on spending more than we could afford and more than was reasonable for the defence rôle that it is right we should undertake.

Oral Answers to Questions — EUROPEAN ECONOMIC COMMUNITY

Mr. Farr: asked the Prime Minister if, in view of the increasing tendency of the nations of the world to group on racial lines and the unique position of


Great Britain and the Commonwealth in this respect, he will confine Her Majesty's Government's approach to the European Economic Community to the exploration of the possibilities of a purely commercial association.

The Prime Minister: No, Sir, I do not think this would be acceptable to the Community or in the best interests of Britain. I agree, however, with the importance of the Commonwealth to world affairs, and the hon. Member will know of the great efforts made by Her Majesty's Government to prevent a break-up of the Commonwealth last autumn.

Mr. Farr: Would not the Prime Minister agree that he and his right hon. Friend had their noses rubbed firmly in the dirt by the French last week, and, in view of that, would not it be better if they were to stop trailing their coat-tails around Europe?

The Prime Minister: No, Sir. Even allowing for the hon. Gentleman's mixed metaphors, I am aware that he hoped what he described would take place, but in fact it did not. I thought that the decision, which was very much approved by the House after a two-day debate, that my right hon. Friend and I should have these very active discussions with the Beads of Government of the Six was warmly supported by the Front Bench opposite.

Mr. Alfred Morris: Is it my right hon. Friend's intention to present a White Paper on what has been learned from the Common Market probe, and will this have to await the outcome of the important discussions in Luxembourg at the end of March, or will there be an interim report?

The Prime Minister: As I said on 10th November, it is our intention that after these visits have been completed the Government will decide their attitude in the light of the information that we obtain from the talks, and then a statement will be made in the House. Whether it will be in the form of an oral statement or a White Paper, or supported by a White Paper, will be a matter to consider at that time.

Mr. Heath: Is the Prime Minister aware that I believe he is right in saying

that it is full membership which is desirable, rather than association? I hope that he is now able to convince his right hon. Friend the Member for Leyton (Mr. Gordon Walker) of this fact, because he took exactly the opposite view.
Secondly, with regard to full membership and supranational powers, he will be aware that in Luxembourg a year ago Five registered their belief in the full supranational powers of the Treaty of Rome, and the French registered their reservations on this point? Can the right hon. Gentleman say where his position is on this?

The Prime Minister: I have said a number of times, both at Question Time and during debates, that as long as we are not members of the Community it is not for us to take sides between One and Five. I thought that the right hon. Gentleman agreed with that, but, if he is taking sides, perhaps some time he will tell us which side he is on. What I said during the debate here was that in coming to the decision to embark on these discussions we had studied not only the wording of the Treaty of Rome, but the growing experience of the operation of it; and, of course, the decisions reached and the statements made at Luxembourg were factors which we took into consideration.

Mr. Heath: I have constantly stated where I stand, which is support for the Treaty of Rome. I have said so in this House and outside, but, as the Prime Minister was about to be asked this question in Brussels, I thought that he might like to tell the House of Commons first.

The Prime Minister: I have already explained to the right hon. Gentleman, since he is not yet accredited as the delegate on behalf of the Six to negotiate with us, that I would prefer to give these answers to those who are so accredited, and then to make, with rather less of a delay than the right hon. Gentleman did, a statement to the House.—[Interruption.] I very well remember the right hon. Gentleman's opening statement to the Common Market negotiations which he refused to disclose to this House until it leaked in Western Europe, and it was then dragged out of him. I gather that the right hon. Gentleman supports the Five against France on


the Luxembourg argument. In the House he was going to extreme lengths arguing about a defence agreement with France. On that at least he was supporting France against the Five. I have no doubt that his views will be studied with great interest all over Europe.

Mr. Thorpe: Is the Prime Minister aware that this is a subject which arouses intense passion amongst young and old alike? Would he agree that, notwithstanding the dangers which may well lie ahead, it is more in the interests of the trading future of the British Commonwealth that we should be full members of the Community, rather than associate members, and still less not members at all?

The Prime Minister: I agree with the preamble to the hon. Gentleman's question, though he did not say where he stood in the division. I certainly agree—and this is what I was trying to say in my original Answer—that it is in the interests of Britain, of Europe and of the Commonwealth, that if the right terms can be found we should go in as full members.

Oral Answers to Questions — HONOURS LIST

Mr. Hamling: asked the Prime Minister what further representations have been made to him on honours lists; and what reply he has sent.

The Prime Minister: I receive many representations on all aspects of the honours system. My correspondents are generally told that their views have been noted with interest.

Mr. Hamling: Is my right hon. Friend aware that a close study of the New Year's honours list will disclose that it is very little changed from those of former years? Is he further aware that it is time we had a radical reform of the honours list, and its almost complete abolition?

The Prime Minister: I have always said that we should have to study this question, including the point that I have mentioned, namely, the virtually automatic honours which are given in certain fields—or which have been given in the past, although here again, starting with the previous Government, there has been

a sharp reduction in the number of honours given to higher civil servants. That started in 1962 or 1963. If my hon. Friend has studied the New Year's honours list he will have noticed that no honours were granted for public and political services. He will also have noticed that over the past two years, with the exception of Law Officers, we have not been recommending baronetcies and knighthoods to Government Members, compared with a figure of 134 for which right hon. Gentlemen opposite were responsible in their period of office.

Sir D. Renton: Will the Prime Minister give an undertaking not to end the present system of granting life peerages until the granting of one to the Paymaster-General for his distinguished services to the Turf?

The Prime Minister: It is not usual to discuss the granting of honours to particular individuals, but I often wonder what the right hon. and learned Member did to get his knighthood out of the previous Government.

Mr. Ogden: Does my right hon. Friend agree that there is a need for a new order of gallantry that will avoid people such as Sir Francis Chichester being included in the same list as dress designers and ballet dancers?

The Prime Minister: Again, it is inappropriate of the House to discuss individual honours, but I would have hoped that the whole House not only approved of the announcement last week but will join with everybody who has expressed good wishes to Sir Francis Chichester on the hazardous voyage that he is undertaking.

Mr. Wolrige-Gordon: Can the Prime Minister tell us where is now the Empire of which he is still making people Commanders, and giving them Orders?

The Prime Minister: Both under the previous Government and the present Government a lot of thought has been given to whether there should be a suitable change in the name of that Order. All the arguments in the end come down against it. Some attractive substitutes might create difficulties with the initials.

Sir Ian Orr-Ewing: On a point of order. Mr. Speaker, you will recall that


the Interim Report by the Select Committee on Procedure drew attention to the fact that Ministers and Prime Ministers uses Question Time for personal abuse of Members of the House of Commons, and your predecessor in the Chair thought that this practice was very undesirable and not in keeping with the dignity of the Prime Minister's office. Is there anything that we can do to change the conditions back to the standards of courtesy which used to exist?

Mr. C. Pannell: Will you consider at the same time, Mr. Speaker, that the question by the right hon. and learned Member for Huntingdonshire (Sir D. Renton) was itself grossly offensive, and merely received from the Prime Minister the answer that it deserved?

Mr. Dodds-Parker: Can the Prime Minister tell us for what services to the British Empire he got his O.B.E.?

The Prime Minister: That honour was net for me to question. It was recommended by Sir Winston Churchill. I should have thought that that would be an answer to the hon. Member. He will have noticed that the little habit of the Conservatives, in all the years except one, of appointing the Chairman of the Young Conservatives to the M.B.E.—many of them are here—has not been followed by us.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I hope that the House in its best moments would deprecate the introduction of personalities at all. In this case they were not first introduced by the Prime Minister, but neither the question nor the answer was of a kind that is desirable.

Mr. Shinwell: On a point of order. Would the House like to use my services to pour a little oil on the troubled waters?

Mr. Speaker: It is not possible for the occupant of the Chair to comment on that; he might be guilty of the offence which he has just deprecated.

Sir D. Renton: I would not wish to compete with the right hon. Gentleman in pouring oil on troubled waters, but, if it helps at the moment to say so, I think that in view of the question which I asked, the Prime Minister's answer was only what I should have expected.

Mr. Speaker: Order. On that oracular note we must pass on.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Richard Crossman): Following the exchanges after the Private Notice Question yesterday, I should like to make a short statement about the business announced for Thursday, 2nd February.
The proceedings on the Road Traffic Bill will be postponed.
Until about 7 p.m. there will be a debate on Malta. This will arise on a Motion for the Adjournment of the House and will be followed by the remaining stages of the West Indies Bill and the Road Safety Bill.

Mr. Heath: I am sure the House will agree that the Leader of the House is right in arranging this debate for Thursday. We are grateful to him for it. It will enable the Government to explain their position and hon. Members to comment on the matter and consider where we go from there.

Sir A. V. Harvey: Will the Leader of the House take note of the fact that there is widespread interest among hon. Members on both sides of the House about the problems of Malta? When account is taken of the Front Bench speakers, what time will be left for back bench Members to express their views on this very important matter?

Mr. Crossman: As I put it to the House in reply to the Private Notice Question, we sometimes have a choice between an early and topical debate on an important subject, and all the time we want. I would have thought it wise to have the debate as early as possible, even if it were short. I hope that it will be possible to get some back benchers in.

Sir C. Taylor: Surely, on the subject of Malta, which has provoked widespread interest throughout the country, the House should have a full day's debate.

Mr. Deedes: Do I understand that we are to have the remaining stages of the Road Safety Bill on Thursday? There is an enormous amount still to discuss on that Bill.

Mr. Crossman: The proposal that I read was that we should do the West Indies Bill and the Road Safety Bill.

Mr. Fisher: If we cannot have a full day's debate on Malta, may I suggest for the right hon. Gentleman's consideration that as it is only half a day we should have only one Front Bench speech from each side instead of two?—otherwise back benchers will not get in at all.

Mr. Crossman: That is a point which we could perhaps consider through the usual channels. Certain suggestions were made, including one that there should be two Front Bench spokesmen, because some people felt that they wanted to hear not only from the Commonwealth Office but from the Defence Ministry. I understand the difficulties, however, and I promise to give this matter thought through the usual channels.

Mr. Ronald Bell: Does not the right hon. Gentleman think that just hoping that some back benchers might get in is not good enough on a subject like this and that the business of the House must be arranged in such a way that it is certain that some back benchers will get in?

Mr. Crossman: If that is the hon. and learned Gentleman's interpretation, I cannot have made it clear enough. Of course, that is the intention. We are now considering—and I said that I would consider it through the usual channels—whether we can ensure adequate debate with one Front Bench speaker on each side. There are advantages and disadvantages there, and I should like to consult through the usual channels.

Mr. Speaker: I hope that we can move on.

Sir Harwood Harrison: May I remind the right hon. Gentleman that the Second Reading debate on the Road Safety Bill was curtailed by the Government, that we feel that this is an important subject and that it should be given adequate time on the Floor of the House?

Mr. Crossman: I will bear that in mind.

Mr. Mapp: Would my right hon. Friend reconsider his position over the Road Traffic Bill? There is a series of Amendments which cut across political issues. In view of the lateness of the hour on a Thursday evening, the House will not be able, with the departure of

provincial Members, to go on. I hope that he will reconsider and put it on later next week.

Mr. Crossman: I could not have made myself clear. The Road Traffic Bill is postponed. We shall not discuss it on Thursday. It is the Road Safety Bill which we are having.

Mr. Deedes: We must get this clear. That is the Bill in question.

Mr. Crossman: I have said that there are two Bills. One is the Road Traffic Bill, which is postponed. The other is the Road Safety Bill—

Mr. Deedes: That is the important one.

Mr. Crossman: —which will be taken, and which we hope to complete, on Thursday evening.

Mr. Awdry: The right hon. Gentleman still has this wrong, with respect. There will be a great deal of discussion on the Road Safety Bill. Would it not be more sensible to postpone it altogether—it is bound to go on a few hours—and deal with the other very vital matter which concerns all hon. Members?

Mr. Crossman: I think that the arrangement over Malta is satisfactory, but if there is strong feeling we shall certainly consider it through the usual channels.

CONSOLIDATED FUND BILL (SECOND READING DEBATE)

Mr. Speaker: I want to help the House over the debate tomorrow on the Second Reading of the Consolidated Fund Bill, which provides the money for the Supplementary Winter Estimates. I have been studying this morning the list of topics which hon. Gentlemen would wish to raise tomorrow. I thought that I had better make the position clear to the House, as I did last year.
In the debate on the present Bill, discussion is narrowly confined to the sums of money asked for by the Ministers and to the reasons for those additional demands. This Bill should not be confused with the March Consolidated Fund Bill when grants of Supply cover the whole of the public service and when,


therefore, back benchers can raise grievances before they grant Supply for any branch of the public services.
There is a second consideration which I must put to the House. If the supplementary grant is for a new service, as some are, or is of the same order of magnitude as the original grant, the whole policy of that service may be raised in debate. If, on the other hand, the Supplementary Estimate represents only a limited increase in the original grant, the debate will have to be limited to the reasons for that increase and should not extend to questions of policy for which the original grant was sought.
I would emphasise what I am saying by repeating the Ruling which I gave on 9th February last year, a Ruling incidentally of some 70 years' standing: I quote:
it is in order to discuss only the particular items which constitute the Supplementary Estimates, and the sub-heads of the original Estimates can only be referred to so far as they are involved in the fair discussion of the points contained in the items asked for in the Supplementary Estimates. It is quite obvious that it would he improper, as a general rule, to raise on a Supplementary Estimate the whole question of policy involved in the original Estimates; and, as I have stated, the discussion is properly confined to the items of the Supplementary Estimates. I think, however, that I ought to state that items of the Supplementary Estimates may raise in themselves questions of policy, but the interpretation whether they do raise questions of policy or not must clearly be left to the Chair."—[OFFICINL. REPORT, 9th February, 1966; Vol. 724, c. 414.]
The Ruling I gave that day was not new. Indeed, I deliberately repeated the words which Mr. Speaker had used on 3rd March, 1893. I thought that this statement would help hon. Members who are a little confused at the present moment about what they can raise in tomorrow's debate.

LIVE HARE COURSING (ABOLITION)

3.46 p.m.

Mr. Eric S. Heffer: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to abolish live hare coursing.
The Bill which I seek to introduce is very simple. Its object is to prohibit the coursing of live hares for sport or competition. I wish to stress this, because a great deal of misrepresentation has been spread around since it became public knowledge that I and other hon. Members intended to introduce such a Bill.
I will begin by defining coursing. I can do it no better than by quoting from a publication issued by the National Coursing Club, entitled, "The Truth About Coursing". It says:
Coursing is a sport of testing the merits of two greyhounds in their competitive pursuit of a hare.
It goes on:
The average course between greyhounds lasts 45 seconds. The longest is believed to be three and a half minutes.
Live hare coursing is fairly widespread. As far as I can ascertain, there are about 200 meetings a year, but the event which attracts most publicity is the Waterloo Cup, held at Altcar, not far from the borders of my constituency.
I do not wish to overstate the case for the Bill. The purpose of coursing is not to kill the hare, and a great many hares escape. Under the rule of the National Coursing Club, it would be wrong if the field used were fenced in to prevent the escape of a hare. I want to be fair about this. However, in the same publication of the National Coursing Club, the question was put:
But you would not deny that hares are in fact killed?
The answer was very clearly given:
Of course not. It would be foolish as well as untrue to say such a thing. The point we do make is that only a small proportion of hares is killed, varying according to conditions.
According to an article in The Times on 21st of this month, by Wilson Stephens:
 In fact, about one hare in 10 is killed.
Obviously a supporter of this so-called sport, the writer continued:
When this happens, the kill is instantaneous, the hare being caught across the back,


which is broken, and the body flung into the air in the manner depicted in sporting prints.
This, I understand, is described as a clean kill.
This is one side of the picture. However, in an article in the People newspaper of 6th November, the kill is described in somewhat different terms. The article also had with it photographs which graphically showed what happens. The article said:
Suddenly, with a mighty leap, a hare was through the hedge and beginning to make a run across the open field. The slipper slipped the dogs loose and suddenly the hare was running for its life. As the dogs closed the gap it twisted and turned in desperation, looking for a way of escape. It ran for the cover of a line of cars, only to be met by a human wall.
The hare turned and ran back between the two dogs, but now it only had seconds to live. The leading dog lunged forward and snapped its teeth round the hare's hindquarters. The second dog closed in and tried to wrench the hare from its opponent. Then, for the first time, I heard the pitiful scream of the hare—like that of a young child in pain. Then followed a tug-of-war with the hare. For ten seconds it continued to scream. Again and again I was to watch the same sordid spectacle, varied only by the speed with which the dogs caught the hare and the savagery with which they mutilated its soft body.
It has been said that that account exaggerates the facts. I will, therefore, quote an extract from a report of a senior inspector of the R.S.P.C.A. at County Durham on 18th January. 1967, in which he stated:
The first hare which was killed was first chased for about a minute before being caught. Once the dogs caught it they pulled it in different directions by its back legs. One dog was the winner and ran off with the hare trailing on the ground beside it as it ran. A man caught the dog and took the hare from its mouth. As he did so the hare let out a piercing squeal—the man then broke its neck.
Another senior R.S.P.C.A. inspector, this time from Bedfordshire, reported:
The ploughed field was extremely soft and the earth was crumbly, and whilst progressing across the field a total of 14 hares was set up—all but three being killed. On the second occasion, two hounds were tearing at a hare, but fortunately a man reasonably near managed to run and retrieve the hare and destroy it.
Yet another R.S.P.C.A. inspector, this time from Lincolnshire, stated:
We saw only six carcases, all of which seemed fairly intact, apart from one which had its stomach ripped out".

It is, therefore, perfectly understandable that the Archbishop of Canterbury, Dr. Ramsey, should have said:
The practice of coursing is a cruel one".
I have with me the programme of the Waterloo Cup Coursing Meeting for 1964. It states:
All rights of photography are strictly reserved".
It is clear why they are reserved. If there was nothing to hide all photographers would surely be welcome.
One point I feel I should make clear. The hares used are not bred in captivity and then transported to the area for the day of the event. However, the Report of the Committee on Cruelty to Wild Animals—a Home Office. Scottish Office, Report issued in 1951—stated:
The National Coursing Club admit that hares are preserved in the sense that they are not shot at Altcar and in some other coursing areas, and also that they are imported at the beginning of the breeding season in order to improve the stock".
The fact that they are not taken and released for the actual events in no way eliminates the fact that these events are both cruel and savage. It is also interesting to note that sometimes the dogs are themselves severely damaged. The people who watch and participate in these events are, I suggest, equally damaged in the sense that they affect their characters and mental attitudes.
The Bill has widespread support throughout the country. It is supported by the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, the League Against Cruel Sports, thousands of churchmen of all denominations and creeds and by humanists. The Guardian also had an editorial giving its support. As a result of a petition inserted in the Liverpool Echo last week—it appeared for just one day—well in excess of 5,000 signatures were sent to the Liverpool office of the League Against Cruel Sports. More than 15,000 signatures have by now been obtained in the Liverpool area alone. This is an example of the feeling that exists in the country.
I am told by opponents of the Measure that many of the 93 hon. Members who have signed a Motion supporting the aims of the Bill have never seen this so-called sport taking place. But hon. Members do


not see murders taking place. They do not see men thrashing their wives. One does not need to see something happening to know that it is wrong. I urge hon. Members to support the Bill and hope that the Government will find time to ensure that it becomes law.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Heffer, Mr. Pounder, Mr. William Price, Dr. Winstanley, Mr. Victor Yates, Miss Lector, Captain Kerby, Mr. Bessell, Mr. Ensor, Mr. Ellis, and Mr. Joseph Kevin McNamara.

LIVE HARE COURSING (ABOLITION)

Bill to abolish live hare coursing, presented accordingly, and read the First time; to be read a Second time upon Friday, 14th April and to be printed. [Bill 176.]

Orders of the Day — AGRICULTURE BILL

Order for Third Reading read.

3.58 p.m.

The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Fred Peart): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
We have had a very full and detailed examination of the Bill. In reviewing its main provisions I shall, therefore, be brief but there are a number of points that I wish to make. Part I is mainly concerned with establishing the Meat and Livestock Commission. I welcome the statement made on 30th June by the right hon. Member for Grantham (Mr. Godber), who led for the Opposition in Standing Committee. He said:
… on the general provisions we support the idea of the Commission …"—[OFFICIAL RFPORT, Standing Committee A, 30th June, 1966; c. 7.]
I know that the Opposition is opposed to some aspects of Part I, but I welcome the fact that all hon. Members see value in the proposals for such a Commission. Hon. Members have expressed this view forcibly, both in Committee and on Report. I welcome the fact that, whatever arguments may have been adduced, most hon. Members recognise the importance of the Commission and see value in the proposals in the Bill.
The livestock and meat industries are faced with many difficult problems. I am convinced that the right way to tackle them is by setting up the Commission, which will have important functions ranging from the farm right through the chain of distribution to the consumer. I have carefully considered the views expressed by hon. Members. We proposed a number of Amendments to take account of many of the points made which, we acknowledge, have improved the Bill. To all hon. Members, on both sides of the House, who have made constructive suggestions, I am grateful. In particular, we have gone to great lengths to ensure that the rights and interests of individuals which could be affected are fully safeguarded.
The main difference between the Government and the Opposition on Part


I of the Bill has arisen on the provision in Clause 9. Hon. Members know the arguments about this full well. Under it the Commission can submit for ministerial and Parliamentary approval development schemes for the better organisation, development or regulation of the industry. There is, however, nothing new in providing a reserve power for a body of this kind to submit schemes to deal with future developments in an industry. It is only sensible to recognise that new situations may arise in which the industry and the Commission will wish to introduce new measures for further development.
I emphasise, as I always have done in our debates, that we are thinking of new situations. We have no specific proposals in mind now. If we had, we would have included provision for them in the Bill. I am sure hon. Members will agree that this is the argument I have always deployed. I emphasise that it is the industry and the Commission which have the initiative in submitting schemes, not the Government. The schemes will be submitted after careful discussion and consultation and through the machinery we have provided there will be adequate knowledge of and recognition that something practical should be done if a scheme is to be produced.
What is new in the Bill as compared with previous legislation in this sphere is the extent of the safeguards provided in Schedule 2 for the interests concerned, reinforced as they have been by Amendments considered on Report. No scheme could go through this procedure successfully unless it is worthwhile and commands wide support. So I am sure hon. Members will agree that there are adequate safeguards in Part I.
Part II deals with farm structure and improvements. In our discussions in Committee on the farm structure proposals there was general agreement that these are valuable measures. I believe that my Parliamentary colleagues and I have been able to satisfy hon. Members opposite that the proposals are entirely of a voluntary kind. No one will be obliged to give up or to enlarge a small farm, but for those who do so real incentives will be available. The payments for those who give up occupation of uncommercial farms for amalgation are not specified in

the Bill. When we make statutory schemes we shall give serious consideration to the view expressed in Standing Committee that, apart from the effect of taxation, the rates proposed in the White Paper may be on the low side. I am glad that hon. Members opposite accept what I have said. I recognise that the rates in the original White Paper could be on the low side.
As to amalgamation itself, we stand ready to bear half the cost of the works and incidental expenses and there will be help with loans for the other half and for land purchases. It was suggested in Standing Committee that an amalgamator might be deterred by some of the conditions attached to an amalgamated unit in the Schedule. I am sure that when the State has put up such a substantial stake it must have a voice in saying whether the amalgamated unit shall remain together in agriculture. This is sensible and reasonable. Anyone who breaks up these units without getting agreement must clearly face certain financial consequences. I am sure the House will agree on this, but to meet the criticism of the original procedure for fixing the amount of damages, we have made amendments to provide for the amount, among other things, to be subject to arbitration.
I turn to Clauses 31 to 34, which provide for the new agricultural investment grants. The Government decided to replace investment allowances by cash grants which will be more selective, more speedy and more certain since they will not depend on future rates of profits and tax. These new grants provide incentives for agriculture comparable to the investment allowances. I am glad that by providing power to vary the rates of grant the Bill as amended now enables these incentives to be more flexible. The House will know from what I said on Report that if the Bill is passed the Government propose to make use of these powers to increase the value of these incentives for a two-year period from 1st January.
We also intend to pay grant on leased tractors and harvesters subject to satisfactory safeguards to prevent any misuse of the grant. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] I am glad that hon. Members approve of that. This was discussed and, being a reasonable Minister representing


a reasonable Government, I accepted some of the arguments. I am sure that this will be beneficial to a large section of the industry. This follows the discussion on Report when I promised hon. Members opposite to consider whether this could be done. I have done it and I hope they will be grateful.
Part III concerns hills and uplands. I regard this as a very important part of the Bill. I admit that I have certain prejudices—and I am not ashamed of them—as I come from Cumberland. I have often been criticised for showing bias in this respect, but I try not to show bias for any section of the industry. I want to see the whole industry develop, flourish and be efficient. However, I believe it right to tackle this problem. This part of the Bill deals with hills and uplands in a special way. The new hill land improvement scheme is designed to increase the productivity of hill land. I an sure that all hon. Members will agree with that.
Under Clause 42 hill livestock subsidies will be put on a long-term basis. This will give an assurance to hill farmers which they have not had before. We all recognise that technical change can take place quickly in these days. The provision that subsidy schemes are to run for no more than five years will ensure that the conditions of grant and the way in which they are working will be reviewed periodically and they can be changed if a change is found desirable.
A great deal of interest has been shown in our proposals for setting up rural development boards in areas of hills and uplands which have special problems of farm structure and co-ordination, and of forestry. Although one hon. Member opposite shakes his head, I am certain that the Opposition generally and the industry accept that what we are doing is imaginative and is an attempt to deal with certain areas where the rural development boards will have an important task. I stress that they will have practical knowledge of the problems to be dealt with in their areas. They will work for the most part by consultation and co-operation, but if they are to do their job of amalgamating farms and regrouping land for agriculture and forestry they must have powers and it may be essential for them to retain land for some time. We have been able to make

quite a number of Amendments suggested by hon. Members opposite, but we insist not agree that it would be right to insist upon the Boards' selling land within a specified period whether or not they had achieved their purpose.
As to forestry, I repeat the assurance that there is no intention of discriminating against private foresters. I have given that assurance over and over again. Both the private forester and the Forestry Commission have a part to play, and both will be encouraged to play it.
This part of the Bill is important. I have every confidence that the Boards will make a real impact on the development of agriculture and forestry in their areas.
Our proposals for the promotion and development of co-operation in Part IV have been widely welcomed by both sides of the House and by the various interests concerned throughout the United Kingdom. This promises well for the success of the proposed Central Council, which will have the task of co-ordinating and consolidating co-operation in existing fields and developing it in new ones.
I am particularly keen to see co-operation develop in production. Co-operation here can be an alternative for the smaller farmer to amalgamation or going out of farming. I know that many hon. Members are concerned about the small farmer. I was recently in Wales—in Breconshire and in Radnorshire—and I spoke on this theme. I stressed the importance of the Bill in relation to co-operation. This is part of the answer—not the only answer, but a very real answer—to some of the problems which affect the smaller men. Co-operation is important. By co-operating among themselves such producers will be able to increase their viability. The new grants which we propose in the scheme under this Part of the Bill will encourage many producers to help themselves in this way.
I come quickly to Part V dealing with miscellaneous matters, Many of these Clauses are very important. They include provisions on credit, farm business records, and animal health In this part of the Bill I set great store by the steps we are taking to tackle the important question of sick pay for farm workers. I am particularly pleased to be associated with this.
The Bill is an important landmark in the history of agricultural legislation. I know that many people have criticised the Bill in detail, but I think that there has been a broad acceptance. It is wide ranging and is designed to tackle some long standing problems of our great agricultural industry. I hope that the Bill will help farmers to go ahead and recognise that we mean business and are anxious to develop this great industry in the interests, not only of the producer—the farmer—and the farm worker, but also in the interests of the community. I am very proud to have brought forward this Bill. I am grateful to all those who have supported it.
I recognise that some people—rightly from their own standpoint—have had to criticise the Bill here and there. I pay tribute to my two Parliamentary Secretaries, who played an important part in the passage of the Bill through Standing Committee, when I often had to go to other meetings affecting the industry. I also pay tribute to the then Minister of State and to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland, who have helped.
I repeat that I am proud to have brought forward this important Bill. I have much pleasure in inviting the House to give it a Third Reading.

4.15 p.m.

Mr. J. B. Godber: The Minister has been commendably brief. I will endeavour to follow his example, because I know that many of my hon. Friends as well as hon. Members opposite wish to speak. We welcome the various Amendments which were inserted on Report and which were dealt with rather rapidly at strange hours, due to the Government's handling of business. At that time, we did not stop the proceedings of the House to thank the Minister personally on each one. I therefore collectively do so now. We think that those Amendments have helped to provide very necessary safeguards in certain parts of the Bill. In particular, we are pleased that the Minister is to make an Amendment in relation to leased tractors. This is a useful development we pressed on him at a rather doubtful hour of the morning. Even so, I am glad that our Amendments have been accepted and I am glad to

know that this change will be made, presumably in another place.
I feel that after the right hon. Gentleman's closing words he must be brought down to earth again. We frequently have to do this, because of his rather extravagant eulogies of his Bill. As I have told the Minister before, the Bill is not a great Bill. It is a small miscellany of odds and ends. It is, in general, irrelevant to the needs of agriculture today. It is as irrelevant to the problems facing agriculture today as, for instance, last season's weather will be to next season's harvest. It is out of date before it gets on to the Statute Book. It was introduced as long ago as November, 1965, on the basis of White Papers laid in August, 1965. At that time the Minister put it forward in the hope that he would be able to emulate the 1947 Act. All this has come back into proper perspective now. The passage of time and the views which have been expressed by the farming community have shown that the judgment I made of the Bill when it first came forward is much nearer the truth than the judgment the Minister put forward then or that which he still tried to claim for it this afternoon. I do not blame him for trying to claim it, but no one else will agree with him.
Of what does the Bill consist? I can comment on it only in sections, because it is a miscellany; it is a hotchpotch of various odds and ends. Part I is the embodiment of some of the ideas in the Verdon-Smith Report. I repeat what I have said before and what the Minister picked up this afternoon, that in general I support the provisions for the Commission. I have, however, always made it clear, as I think became obvious from the Minister's remarks, that the feelings of all hon. Members on this side, without exception, are that, even though we may accept the Commission, we do not accept the need for Clause 9. We have made this abundantly clear throughout. Clause 9 was not in the Verdon-Smith Report. We believe it to be obnoxious in relation to agriculture. We believe it to be obnoxious in relation to Parliament as well because of its sweeping powers and the generality of those powers.
The Minister said that there are adequate safeguards, and he referred us to Schedule 2. It is true that there are


certain safeguards in that Schedule. However, though those safeguards may help in some degree, they cannot help Parliament when it comes to debate and consider any scheme brought forward, because such a scheme must be assented to or refused in its totality. As the Minister well knows, there can be no question of amendment of any scheme brought before the House.
It is not only we who have expressed concern about Clause 9. I will not repeat the arguments we have employed many times. Only last week at the N.F.U. annual meeting a number of members expressed their criticism and concern of Clause 9. The word "dictatorship" was used about this Clause. A representative from Norfolk said:
This is giving the State powers over the individual producer on his own farm such as the State has never had before in peacetime.
There were many other comments of a similar nature. It is prefectly true that Mr. Cowen, who responded to the debate, said that he did not think there was cause for panic over Clause 9. That was scarcely an enthusiastic reception. He said that considerable and formidable safeguards were written in and that the union believed that with these safeguards it should be supported.

Mr. Peart: Could the right hon. Gentleman say what was the position at the end of that debate on Clause 9?

Mr. Godber: It was accepted, but it was accepted on the basis of the assurance which Mr. Cowen gave. I ask the Minister what promise he has given to the N.F.U. in relation to these safeguards. The safeguards in Schedule 2 are not real safeguards. The only safeguard which the Minister provided in order to satisfy the National Farmers' Union, is in paragraph 5(2) of Schedule 2 which he wrote in at the N.F.U.'s request. Will the right hon. Gentleman say that that paragraph would prevent a Minister from imposing quotas on farmers? Would it prevent a Minister from shutting down or compelling the closing of farms? The Minister knows as well as I do that it would not.
I wonder what assurance he gave to the farmers about that. There is no Parliamentary safeguard in that passage. Therefore, if the Clause was approved on this basis, farmers should have another look at it. However, we have debated this Clause at great length and I shall

not go through it again now. I would only say that it is an affront to Parliament in that the Minister has never attempted to say for what purposes these powers are required. He said today that there was nothing new about providing a reserve power, but this is far more than a reserve power. It is a major aspect of this part of the Bill. It is a very sweeping power for which no justification has been provided before Parliament, and whether it be an Agriculture Bill or anything else, it is wrong to bring forward such sweeping provisions with no explanation about why they are needed. Our views on Clause 9 remain as they have been throughout and I am very sorry that we have not been able to persuade the Government of the total inadequacy of their arguments.
I come now to Clause 12, the beef cow subsidy, which was introduced at the last price review and which the Minister did not mention today. I mention it because I was very surprised by something which he said about this the other day in a speech which he made at Brecon. In that speech, a verbatim report of which I have studied, he was talking about the loss of confidence in the livestock trade generally, a loss of confidence which he now admits, although in November, when we debated the subject, he was inclined to deny it.
He said at Brecon that the Government had taken a series of steps to alleviate the situation. He enumerated one or two of the steps which had been taken, suggesting that one was the beef cow subsidy of £6 10s. for an eligible cow payment of which was now beginning. He claimed that it was done to alleviate the situation, but he knows as well as I do that he introduced the beef cow subsidy long before this situation arose. He introduced it in last year's Price Review when there was no indication that the Government's policy would have such a disastrous effect on the livestock industry in the ensuing months. To call it in aid as something which had been introduced to alleviate the situation was dishonest and I am surprised that the right hon. Gentleman should have said it, although others might have done so. This misled the farmers on that issue. Nevertheless, we have accepted and welcomed the intentions of the beef cow subsidy although we have always said that it was neither adequate nor sufficient in its financial provisions.
Perhaps I may take up the point here in relation to Clause 42 which the Minister mentioned in that same speech at Brecon a few days ago and which deals with hill sheep. He said that the Clause gave hill farmers a real assurance, which they needed at the present time, and that there were many who were very worried indeed. He said that he had arranged for a substantial advance of the hill sheep subsidy several months earlier than normal. That does not indicate any additional money, from the way that he said it. This was merely anticipating something which would have come, anyway. This should be an ex gratia payment in addition to any normal provision. Because of the very great difficulties which these farmers have suffered, it should be said quite clearly that this is not merely an advance payment of something which would be coming, but an additional sum, because these people have lost money. I hope that the Minister will deal with this specific point and will give some thought to the hill farmers, because this payment will not give them the comfort they need.

Mr. Robert Maclennan: Nonsense.

Mr. Godber: It is no good the hon. Member saying "nonsense". If the hon. Gentleman does not know the facts, he does not know the conditions of these farmers.

Mr. Maclennan: The right hon. Gentleman is perhaps unaware that I have received a great many letters from constituents and area representatives of the National Farmers' Union expressing extreme satisfaction at the Government's measures in this regard.

Mr. Godber: Is this because they are anticipating that it is an additional payment? If it is only an advance payment, it can only be a temporary alleviation, and the hon. Member must know that. If he pretends otherwise, then he is being dishonest both to himself and to his constituents. Unless it is an additional payment, coming after what they suffered last summer, then it cannot help. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will impress that on the Minister, otherwise he will receive a lot of different letters from his constituents before he is very much older.
I pass now to Part II of the Bill, the question of amalgamations. I was rather

interested in what the Minister said, that the financial provisions were possibly on the low side. That was encouraging, and I hope that it means that larger sums will be made available. I have always said that the provisions were not sufficient to encourage any real change in this regard. I hope that it is an indication that the Minister is thinking again in regard to it. It is very necessary that he should. It is true that he attempted to reassure farmers when he went to Brecon. I do not know whether he mentioned the article in the Western Mail of 9th January, reporting the Secretary of State for Wales, with the banner headline: "Why we want to squeeze out the small farmers." I think that worried quite a lot of small farmers.

Mr. Elystan Morgan: Would the right hon. Gentleman accept, after a careful reading of that article—and I trust that he did that—that the headline was wholly misleading and bore no relation whatsoever to the contents of the article?

Mr. Godber: I am not sure that I will accept it. I read the article with great care, and I would say that I could not find the actual words quoted. But I take it to be the interpretation of the editor to the article. I am sure the hon. Member will agree that it is a reasonable interpretation of the arguments put forward by the Secretary of State. It is put rather more bluntly than is usual for a politician, but it is a correct interpretation. It is, in fact, the interpretation which the editor has put on those words. It is a logical interpretation to put on the argument which has been put forward.
The reassurances which the Minister gave in regard to the voluntary nature was more than necessary after any small farmer had read that particular article. This is a very critical matter, and I am glad that the Minister has been so specific about the voluntary nature of this because only if it is voluntary can we on this side of the House consider supporting it, because compulsion in regard to this is alien to us.
The Minister cannot blame anyone but himself if people get anxious about it when phrases such as "uncommercial units" are spelled out so specifically in Clause 39. It was a grave psychological error, to say no more, when he uses this


very phrase,"uncommercial unit", as applying to anything less than full time occupation for two people, because this is a very, unreasonable way in which to describe what could be a highly efficient small unit. I still hope that the Government can find a better way in which to describe this type of farm. They will otherwise give a clear indication to many people that these small farmers are in danger of being squeezed out by the Government's policies, and there are plenty of other indications that these policies will have that effect.
The main folly of the provisions about amalgamation is that, whatever their merits, they will operate in exactly the opposite direction to other Government legislation and in particular to the 1965 Finance Act. What is the good of seeking to encourage amalgamation in this way when the direct result of the Capital Gains Tax will be to force the fragmentation of many a family farm? This is something which no Minister could possibly deny. I predict that the Government's total policies in this respect will cause far more harm from fragmentation due to the Capital Gains Tax than ever they will do good through the amalgamations which these provisions may help to bring about.
I notice that the Minister did not mention Clause 30 and the farm improvement scheme, but I must still record my view that it was wrong to cut down the rate of subsidy in this scheme, although, of course, I acknowledge the widening of its scope. It was a great pity to spoil a very good scheme by niggardliness in the rate of grant.
The Minister specifically mentioned Clauses 31 to 33 and said that they were more selective, more speedy and more certain than the old investment allowances. I could not disagree with him more. The old investment allowances we re clearly understood and were a great help. They were flexible and they were appreciated. I remember that in Committee the right hon. Gentleman said that these Clauses had the support of the N.F.U. They probably had the support of the N.F.U. because the investment allowances had already been withdrawn and the N.F.U. was offered this or nothing. If a drowning man is thrown a life-belt he will accept it gladly, but that is not to say that he would not much rather be sitting in the boat where he

was before he was tossed out. The view of the farming community is that it would rather have the old investment allowances, but that, having been denied them, it has to have this system, and that is the best which I can say about these Clauses.
I come now to hill land. The rural development boards will need to act with the greatest care if they are to retain the good will of those in the areas in which they are set up. We have been given little enough reason for setting them up and there are many who view this extension of State interference with the greatest misgiving.
The proposals about forestry are very far-reaching and I was very glad that this afternoon the Minister specifically said that it was not intended to discriminate against private forestry. I hope that a good deal more consideration will be given to the forestry aspects when the Bill goes to another place. This shows what damage can be done to a Bill when the Report stage is discussed so late at night as was the case in this instance. There are still certain matters connected with forestry which require consideration. The sweeping impact of Clause 48 is harmful and we have never had full justification for subsection (1).
The various provisions in Parts IV and V would certainly have my general blessing and I agree with much of what the Minister said about them this afternoon. But the fact remains that in general the Bill is unrelated to the main needs of agriculture today—the need to provide the opportunity for agricultural expansion unfettered by the built-in strains and stresses of the present system of agricultural support. Farmers today are worried and anxious and the Bill will do precious little to ease their worries or their anxieties. What is wanted is something much more radical and fundamental. We ourselves have proposed a system which we believe would be much better.
If there be any doubt about the inadequacy of the present system one has only to look at the gloomy forebodings with which both sides, the Government and the N.F.U., approach the present Price Review at a time when both the national interest and the interests of agriculture require an expansion of home production, and yet the dead hand of the Treasury will deny the necessary incentives.


[Laughter.] Hon. Members may laugh, but when the Price Review comes, it will be seen how near I am to being correct. The Bill will do nothing to change that.
We are entitled to know how the Bill fits into the Government's present approach to the Common Market. The Minister did not mention this. I sent the Minister a letter saying that we would discuss this matter on Third Reading and hoping that he would touch on the points which I raised in the letter.

Mr. Peart: May I ask for the guidance of the Chair? I would have thought that getting involved in a discussion of matters of policy, such as the Common Market, outside the Bill would be out of order. I have followed tradition and the rules of order and I have moved the Third Reading of the Bill and described it. I would have thought that it would be out of order to get involved in arguments about the Common Market or the Government's policy in relation to the Common Market. I ask for guidance from the Chair.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Eric Fletcher): It is well known that in a Third Reading debate one cannot discuss anything which is not in the Bill. I gather that there is nothing in the Bill about the Common Market.

Mr. Godber: Further to that point of order. I gave way because I thought that the right hon. Gentleman was rising to put a point to me, but then he turned to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I thought that it would be helpful if we could be told the Government's view as to which of the various provisions in the Bill would be expected to fall within the general pattern of agricultural policy in the Common Market. I was doing so because we should not pass new legislation in a sort of limbo but in relation to the conditions confronting the country at the time.
I merely asked in a letter to the Minister whether he would express a view as to which of the provisions in the Bill would assist our entry and which would not. I submit that this is a proper issue to raise on Third Reading. Have I your permission to develop it a little further, Mr. Deputy Speaker?

Mr. Peart: rose—

Mr. Godber: This is a matter for Mr. Deputy Speaker.

Mr. Peart: If you agree, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I shall be put into a difficult position. I followed the procedure which I believed to be correct. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will not try to raise wider issues. I should love to debate that matter, but this is not the place.

Mr. Godber: Further to that point of order. It is very strange that the Minister should take this attitude, because I wrote to him on 10th January and he did not tell me at that time that he would decline to discuss it.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Is the right hon. Member for Grantham (Mr. Godber) now addressing me on a point of order, or is he continuing his speech in the debate?

Mr. Godber: I had sought your permission to continue the speech, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I thought from your silence that you had acquiesced.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The right hon. Gentleman began his observations by saying "Further to that point of order", and then drifted into a debate with the Minister. If he wishes to address me on the point of order raised by the Minister, I am prepared to listen to him.

Mr. Godber: I apologise if there has been any misunderstanding. Further to the point of order. I sought to give the reason why I was attempting to raise this issue. It is specifically because of the relationship of the Bill to the Common Market issue. I was saying that one could not deal with matters with a total disregard to the existing situation outside. I would be grateful if you would allow me to develop it a little further, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Any hon. Member or right hon. Member is entitled to make his own speech on the subject, but on the Third Reading of a Bill he must confine his observations to what is in the Bill. He cannot discuss matters which are not in the Bill. Therefore, the right hon. Gentleman is entitled to comment in his own way on the contents of the Bill and to do so as he thinks fit and incidentally to say


whether he thinks that it affects our entry in the Common Market. However, I do not think that the right hon. Gentleman is entitled to expect the Minister to make any observations on the same subject unless he chooses to do so.

Mr. Elystan Morgan: Whilst accepting all you have said on this matter, Mr. Deputy Speaker, is not the right hon. Member for Grantham (Mr. Godber) pleading an alternative case to what is contained in the Bill, and even at best is discussing the Bill in relation to a hypothetical situation?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: In my view, the right hon. Gentleman is entitled to discuss the convents of the Bill in his speech and is entitled, without developing the matter at any length, to say whether he thinks that the Bill's contents have such and such an effect on the Common Market, but he is not entitled to invite either the Minister or any hon. Member to pursue that subject unless the Minister or the Member wishes to do so. Nor is any hon. Member entitled to extend the debate into a debate about the Common Market.

Mr. J. M. L. Prior: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. It may be of assistance to you to know that when he sat on this Bench the Minister of Agriculture quite often used similar occasions to launch into a tirade on the Common Market. Why should not my right hon. Friend use the opportunity to say just a few passing words?

Mr. Peart: I never once abused the procedure. That is on record, and hon. Members can check that I have never abused the procedure of Third Reading. If the hon. Member can find out that I did, I shall withdraw. But I never did. He should know that.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I am not concerned with what happened on any previous occasion, but only to see that the rules of order are preserved on this occasion.

Mr. Godber: I am most grateful to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and for the assistance of other hon. Members on this matter. I shall certainly keep within your ruling, as I always try to do, and reserve my comments on the Common Market strictly to the Bill. But I must

put on record that I am surprised that after writing specifically to the Minister he has declined to make any comment or to reply to my letter. I leave the matter at that. It was lack of courtesy if nothing else.

Mr. Peart: Is it in order, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for an hon. Member to seek to probe your Ruling? I would be delighted to debate the matter on another occasion, but as Minister of Agriculture I must present the Bill today.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: It would not be in order for the Minister to pursue the matter, particularly as I understood the right hon. Gentleman to say that he was not pursuing it.

Mr. Godber: I have nothing to withdraw. If there is anything to withdraw it is on the other side of the House. I am most surprised at the Minister's attitude on this.
The Bill may have been proposed and produced before there was consideration of our entering the Common Market, but when the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary have once more gone to the Continent in connection with that, it is very strange that a piece of legislation comes before us for Third Reading and that we should not be told anything about whether the Bill will facilitate their discussions, or work against them. It seems extraordinary that we are asked to put the Bill on the Statute Book without any reference to the Common Market. That was why I invited the Minister to say—

Mr. Peart: Surely irrespective of whether one enters the Common Market or not, any Bill designed to increase the efficiency of agriculture, which is forward looking, should be welcomed by all sides? If the right hon. Gentleman feels that the time is not opportune to bring in the Bill, he should have opposed it.

Mr. Godber: That is exactly the point, and why it would have been helpful to have the Minister's comments. One must look at the Bill now in relation to whether it will help or not. Some provisions in it would be helpful; others would be harmful. It would be useful to have the Government's view. In view of the attitude taken, and the fact that the points of order have taken a lot of time from back-benchers. I do not propose to pursue the matter. I only repeat my


disappointment at the attitude the Minister has adopted on it.
While the Bill as a whole may have slight advantages in some regards, it does not meet the needs of agriculture today, and is a failure from that point of view. In so far as it can be helpful, we do not oppose it. We have not opposed it in principle all the way through, and we welcome certain improvements that have been made. But an awful lot more could and should have been done.

4.45 p.m.

Mr. Robert Maclennan: The House has been treated this afternoon to a rather typical and hyperbolical performance by the Opposition spokesman on agriculture, the right hon. Member for Grantham (Mr. Godber). He has described the Bill as a small miscellany of odds and ends, irrelevant and out of date. I think that his view of the Bill is not shared by the farming industry.
It is true that in a sense the Bill is an omnibus Measure. It is important in that it deals with a great many issues covering a great many aspects of farming. It is a convenient method of bringing before Parliament a number of measures all related to one important and extremely timely theme—productivity. The productivity of farming in this country has been increasing, is increasing and should increase. The Bill seeks to ensure that that tendency will continue.
It is no criticism of the Bill to say that to concentrate on that aspect of farming is not to solve all its serious and present problems. There is no doubt that the livestock section of the industry in particular is going through extremely difficult times. We have debated that matter before on another occasion and it was not timely of the right hon. Member for Grantham to rehearse the earlier arguments of that debate.
To that extent, I am in sympathy with the points of order raised this afternoon, although they have taken up valuable time. In my view, the Bill has been widely welcomed, despite the uncertainties which at present surround the farming industry. However, it is important that we should stress that productivity, to

which the Bill is primarily directed, is not the entire answer.
Only today it is reported in the Scottish Press that considerable improvements have been taking place in farming land in the crofting counties and that in the past year crofters have improved their acreages by grants from the Crofters Commission by no less than 14 per cent. over the previous 12 months. The total acreage improved amounted to 25,000 acres under those grants. Last year a total of more than a quarter of a million pounds was paid out by the Commission for that purpose. But the fact remains that crofting is in a parlous state, and it must be hoped that the Bill will do something towards assisting, whether by the very valuable provisions relating to co-operation or those relating to improvement of hill land.
That productivity is increasing is clear from figures coming in from all round the country. To deal with the diminishing returns, farmers are increasing their output, particularly of livestock. One significant illustration of that comes from the Scottish Department of Agriculture farm in my constituency at Achany in Sutherland, where at sales 25 stots and 29 heifers were sold last year for a total of £2,863: this year, although there was a considerably increased sale of 37 stots and 27 heifers the total takings were down to £2,704. Those are extremely telling figures. The same is true in the sheep industry. Whereas last year 367 lambs and 155 cast ewes made £2,705, this year 241 lambs and 133 cast ewes made £2,002. The picture is one of increased productivity but of diminishing profit, and it is for this reason that farmers throughout the country look hopefully to the Government for the recognition of the problems in the forthcoming discussions between the different sections of the industry and the Government.
The right hon. Member for Grantham, speaking about the beef cow subsidy, took issue with my right hon. Friend for a statement that this Measure was introduced to alleviate the situation in the live-sock sector. Whether or not the word "introduced" was used is irrelevant. The fact is that the Measure will assist the livestock sector.
Another point concerns private foresters and the assurance given my right hon. Friend today that their interests are in no way threatened by the Bill. There is some concern in certain parts of the country that it is not the interests of private foresters which are being threatened but those of agriculturists by the encroachments of unplanned afforestation by private foresters. In some cases, these are merely window dressing operations involving tree planting around estate policies, frequently near roads and bearing no relation to whether or not the land is being used best.
It is because they will deal with this kind of question that one welcomes the setting up of the Rural Development Boards and one hopes that there will be much greater planning of land use, in the hill and upland areas in particular where, hitherto, too much unplanned exploitation has devastated large tracts of the country. It will be no solution to the problem of these areas simply to plaster the only arable land within them with trees and there must be, as has been said time and again in this House—although now we have the means to translate the policy into action under these new powers—planned and integrated afforestation and farming. Each can assist the other.
One shares with the right hon. Member for Grantham some of the doubts about the effect of entry to the Common Market upon the purposes of the Bill. There is real uncertainty in the farming community as to the direction in which we are trending at present, but however irrelevant or relevant it may be to the discussions taking place the Bill is a good one and is welcomed widely in the farming community. I hope that it will be given a speedy Third Reading.

4.54 p.m.

Sir Charles Mott-Radclyffe: My right hon. Friend the Member for Grantham (Mr. Godber) doubted, quite rightly, whether the Bill was likely to be one of the great landmarks in the story of agriculture which the right hon. Gentleman the Minister claimed it to be. The difficulty with this Bill is fitting it into the rest of the general jigsaw pattern of legislation relating to agriculture. No one in the industry really knows what the Government are trying to do. For example, do the Government want to

make farms bigger or smaller? There is the Small Farms Scheme and in this Bill the grants to encourage amalgamation of uneconomic units.
But, as my right hon. Friend pointed out, along comes the Finance Act with its Capital Gains Tax and Estate Duty and this makes nonsense of the proposals for bigger holdings. At the end of the day, one does not know where one is. The Bill contains quite a good scheme of financial inducements, loans and grants for amalgamating uneconomic holdings and adjustments of farm boundaries and the rest. The condition is that the amalgamated unit has to be farmed as an amalgamated unit for a minimum of 40 years. Has the Minister ever worked out what will happen in practice? Unless the owner of the newly amalgamated farm is very young, he will die before 40 years have elapsed. His executors will then have to pay Estate Duty, Captal Gains Tax and the rest.
Let us take the example of an amalgamated arable farm of 300 acres in East Anglia, good farming land. I suggest that, on the death of the owner, the valuation of the farm would be about £250 an acre vacant possession. This would, by my calculation, face his executors with an Estate Duty valuation of £75,000. Then there is the 45 per cent. rebate for agricultural land so that, with the relevant rate of Duty, the executors would have to find £18,000 in Estate Duty. Unless the owner-occupier had a great deal of capital invested elsewhere, the executors would have no option but to sell part of the holding to find the money for Estate Duty.
But that is precisely what the executors will not be allowed to do without the consent of the Minister. If one wishes to fragmentate an amalgamated holding for which a grant has been given, one cannot do so without the Minister's consent, and if he withholds his consent to fragmentation the executors will be able to do nothing else but sell the holding as a whole. There will be no third course. But this will deny the farmer's son the very livelihood that his father has built up for him. That is the logical conclusion of large sections of Part II of the Bill. If the Joint Parliamentary Secretary wants to tell me


my arithmetic is wrong, perhaps he will say so.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. John Mackie): Estate Duty has been levied for 50 years and farms have been getting larger.

Sir C. Mott-Radclyffe: But there have not been Capital Gains Tax nor grants for amalgamation of three or four holdings with the proviso that the holding cannot be split again without the Minister's consent. The hon. Gentleman does not know what he is talking about. These are completely new factors. Despite this, however, the Government are taking bogus credit for introducing this Bill.

Mr. Elystan Morgan: Does not the hon. Gentleman appreciate that, in relation to Capital Gains Tax, the Finance Act, 1965, made many substantial concessions to agriculture? Will he not give the Government credit for that?

Sir C. Mott-Radclyffe: I was going on to that. The hon. Gentleman was a little too quick. The concessions made to agriculture, particularly to the owner-occupiers, the first £10,000 excluded, was made as a result of very strong representations from this side of the House during some very tough debates in Committee on the Finance Bill. It was not a concession which the Government brought in. I am very grateful to the hon. Member for reminding me to make the point, which I was going to make later.
Then we have our old friend the surplus farmhouse. We had a lot of talk about the surplus farmhouse late at night on Report. One might have two or three holdings, A, B and C, being amalgamated into one economic unit, and as a result one has two surplus farmhouses. What is the owner to do? He can sell the surplus farmhouse, but he may be unwilling to do this if he has a son, likely to be married and join him in the business. He can let it, but if he does so it will not be very easy for him to regain possession. Finally, he can leave it empty, and the only certain way of being able to get it back again is to do so. It was left to the hon. Member for Norfolk, North (Mr. Hazell) to advance the astonishing theory that it was better for

everyone concerned that a farmhouse should be empty, doing no good to anyone, rather than that the farmer should let it and be unable to regain possession. The only sensible alternative would be that the farmer should have some right to regain the other farmhouse in certain circumstances.
I come to the money for the farm improvement scheme. A great deal of credit has been taken by the Government for this. It includes the investment allowances for plant and machinery and tractors, but it does not include cottages and it ought to. Almost everyone knows of areas where extra cottages are needed, perhaps on newly amalgamated holdings.
The way in which the Minister turned down some Amendments on forestry during Report was incredible. One has to ask permission of a Development Board to plant more than 10 acres of trees! On some of the very big areas in the hill farms for instance, two wind-breaks around the two sides of a big field amounts to ten acres. It is no good the right hon. Gentleman saying that this is not anti-private forestry. Maybe it is not meant to be. I know that provisions exclude any woodland owner whose woodlands are dedicated under a covenant and who is operating a planting programme with the consent of the Forestry Commission.
The planting programme under the dedication covenant lasts for 10 years. At the end of that time it can be renewed or various other things can happen. What happens if, under this Bill, an owner wants to plant a further 10 or 11½ acres just after his initial period and the 10-acre planting programme has run out and is not renewed? Does the Minister really mean to say that a man cannot plant 11 acres of willows or poplars without getting the consent of the Development Board? This is absolutely crazy and the Joint Parliamentary Secretary knows this but does not admit it.
I turn to the powers of the Rural Development Board. These are a nonsense from beginning to end. One has to obtain the permission of the Rural Development Board before one can sell any land in its area. We have already explained, I hope ad infinitum, that there are certain circumstances in which land has to be sold, such as when the owner dies and the executors have to find money. I know


that there are certain provisions for the exclusion of family sales. As the Bill was originally drafted for some astonishing reason one could sell or give one's farm to one's grandfather, but could not do so in respect of one's nephew. I think that that has been put right now, but it shows the degree of care with which the original Bill was drafted.
How can the Development Board refuse permission to the executors to sell a holding, if only by reason of selling that holding, can they pay Estate Duty? It is no good talking about powers because they make no sense. The Bill goes through the motions of encouraging the creation of larger and more economic-sized holdings in agriculture and then other legislation comes along and makes it absolutely certain that the larger holdings so created cannot possibly last more than 40 years unless the owner is very rich. The Bill is not likely to have much impact upon the future pattern of agriculture—it is about as bogus as most of the things that this Government have done.

5.7 p.m.

Mr. John P. Mackintosh: The hon. Member for Windsor (Sir C. Mott-Radclyffe) says that he does not understand how this Bill fits into the major agricultural policy of the Government, that it seems to be going in a different direction. One of the few things that was absolutely clear to me was how it fits into the policy of the Government and into the policy pursued by both parties since 1957. As I understand it, the policy of both parties has been slowly to tighten the financial squeeze on farming, limiting Exchequer liability, and hoping that the result will be increased efficiency and increased output. This has been the policy adopted by both Front Benches, despite all major arguments, over the past 10 years.
The only big change was in 1964, when instead of condemning increased output the then Government actually said that they welcomed increased farming output. They did so in their National Plan and produced enthusiasm and encouragement for the farming industry. This Bill seems to fit perfectly into this policy, because it tries to get the farming industry to rationalise, to cut down smallholdings, to improve marketing, to increase investment, and to make easy

co-operative proceedings, all of which is designed to further this general policy of increased output, diminished Exchequer liability, greater efficiency and larger units.
My experience, discussing this with farmers and farming groups throughout Scotland, has been that as the Bill stands they welcome it, but that they take the point made by the right hon. Member for Grantham (Mr. Godber) that the Bill is somewhat out of date, that it was looking at a situation where the farming industry was supposed to be in a more flourishing condition than it is at the moment, because it assumes capital and confidence with which to reorganise marketing and produce larger holdings. All of this is welcomed but the position has moved on and there is now some evidence of disinvestment in the industry which is extremely worrying. The Minister should consider the fact that if this is taking place, the objects of this excellent Bill may not be fully achieved. I welcome the proposals in the Harper Adams speech, which indicated that in order to see whether the Bill's purposes are being met a further study is being done on agricultural investment. We must know if this is being kept up.
If the evidence of one's inspections is true—that the number of farm buildings is not improving, the farmers are not putting money, as was hoped under the Bill, into new machinery and equipment and a rundown is taking place—we may get to the pitch where confidence in the industry drops and there will be a disinvestment in it which will stop amalgamations and halt the purposes of the Bill. This would be an unhappy situation in which to attempt the reorganisation which will be necessary if and when we go into the Common Market. As with most other industries, if agriculture is to go into the Common Market, it should be in a position where there is confidence and sufficient capital to complete the necessary reorganisation.
My main interest in the Bill is to see whether the Minister will fulfil its objectives, which are entirely admirable, and hack them up in his forthcoming Price Review and in his further policy statements. I would like to make one or two suggestions about the dilemma which my right hon. Friend has to solve and one or two possible ways out of it. The dilemma


is shown clearly in the Part of the Bill dealing with the promotion of agricultural investment. The problem is how to get increased efficiency in an industry which is being squeezed and has been squeezed for ten years and yet to keep sufficient capital and confidence in it.
I have left slightly out of reckoning the hill sheep and hill cattle provisions, because that it a separate section of the industry with very special problems. The only part of the Bill that is out of keeping with the rest is the Part concerning hill land, because that is a special case in which the whole processes affecting agriculture over the last ten years might not have worked satisfactorily. These areas are in a critical condition and people are extremely worried. I accept the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan) that the interim payment on the hill ewe subsidy was a tremendous relief to those areas because it kept them floating.
The question is, where do we go now? One cannot meet this problem on the basis simply of the provisions of the Bill. I do not think that any of us have got to the bottom of this problem and I welcome the new review that my right hon. Friend the Minister, the N.F.U. and the Scottish N.F.U. are conducting. I hope that in his reply to the debate, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland will say when this review will be published and how much we can expect to be done as a result of it.
My feeling concerning hill land and hill farms is that we should deliberately inject capital to keep them floating until we see the future of our trade policy. A great deal of the future of this area will depend upon the renegotiation of the New Zealand agreement and on the future relationship with the mutton industry abroad and with Europe. We cannot determine a long-term policy for the hill land areas on the basis of the Bill or of any other Measure until we know whether we are going into the Common Market and on what terms. It is, therefore, in the national interest to keep these areas of farming floating for three or four years until we can answer these major questions.
I turn now to the major issue of agriculture on the broader plains of cereals

and beef, where the situation is healthier although in difficulty. One of the problems of the Bill is that it attempts to achieve these laudable ends in what, I understand, would be the way that any of us might well adopt were we in the Minister's shoes. In other words, when one sees a laudable amalgamation project, one gives a grant and helps. We want to encourage people to have farm accounting schemes, and for this purpose we give assistance or grant.
In the Bill I detect 15 new or reorganised grants or subsidies. What bothers me is whether we could not achieve the same processes by a much simpler and administratively less costly method. On 14th December, I asked my right hon. Friend the Minister why, when the total amount of agricultural subsidies showed a reduction over the last ten years, the cost of administering these subsidies had risen from £4·7 million to £10·2 million. The reason for this is not any cheap sloganising about more civil servants and the like but it is because we have shifted the emphasis to production grants, which are costly to administer. One has to have inspectors pottering around the farms counting the number of legs of the sheep and dividing by four. All this goes on and on. It has certain point to it in that it is more selective. It has great attractions because help is channelled to the people who need it in the particular circumstances. We can, however, get to a position in which the total cost of what I calculate to be 50 subsidies and grants of different kinds before the Bill was introduced, which has now risen to a total of nearly 60 different grants and subsidies, may make the exercise extremely complicated and it might be much easier to adopt a simpler pattern.
We should particularly give a tremendous amount of morale and encouragement to our farmers by concentrating on price supports rather than on a multitude of minor production grants and special grants. I recall the arguments in Gavin McCrone's book, written ten years ago, and which, I know, is bedside reading for the Minister and for all senior civil servants in this matter, when the author wrote that the problem was not that we were producing too little but that we thought that we were producing too much. The question was how to be selective. Now, the farmers must produce like billy-ho to keep their heads


above water. We can, therefore, forget about this criterion and decide what is administratively the cheapest way to create enthusiasm and restore the confidence that is needed in the industry. The farmer's work is hindered while he has to fiddle about with this and that grant or form and the next thing. Therefore, I ask whether, in the farm policy behind the Bill, we should not seriously consider a great simplification and the addition to the end price of the extra money which could be saved.
Let me give two examples concerning the fertiliser and lime subsidies. If farmers do not now know the value of fertilisers, they never will. This point was made years ago. I would like to see a study conducted to find who is the ultimate beneficiary of these grants. My feeling is that ultimately the people who benefit from fertiliser grants are Fisons and I.C.I. The money finally lands up in their pockets. I would rather the £40 million went on to the end price of the major products. If we were to do this, we would also save administrative costs and we might save £5 million which could do something for our hill land group with which we are dealing in the Bill.
A reduction of subsidies would do a tremendous amount to help in this way our ultimate entry to the Common Market. This is a point that my right hon. Friend the Minister might consider. I appreciate that the Bill was drafted when our entry to the Common Market was highly unlikely. Now that the odds are evens or better, we should consider whether the subsidy pattern should not be reorganised so that the end price is raised closer to the European end price and thus becomes a much easier proposition to dismantle when ultimately we enter the Common Market.
Therefore, whereas the Bill is entirely welcome and completely comprehensible on the grounds of amalgamation, greater efficiency and all these objectives, which both Front Benches have sought in agriculture over the last ten years, it now needs to be supported and backed up with an assurance that there will be more capital in the industry. Confidence needs to be restored. This can partly be done at the next Price Review. It can partly be done by a careful reorganisation of the subsidy pattern and an increase in the

end price. I hope that my right hon. Friend the Minister will consider these matters.

5.18 p.m.

Mr. Alasdair Mackenzie: I am pleased to see the Bill in its final stages in this House after its protracted passage. It will, I think, be generally agreed that the first 25 Clauses, dealing with meat and livestock marketing, are a very involved piece of legislation. To many of those who are intimately concerned with these matters, many of the Clauses are incomprehensible.
For the benefit of farmers and of those who have to administer the scheme, the Government should provide an explanatory booklet. Many of those whom I have met recently have asked me to explain the provisions of the Bill, which it is most difficult to do. I hope that the Minister will bear that in mind.
It should be pointed out as well that this marketing commission is not an answer to the marketing boards which the National Farmers' Union has advocated for a long time. While accepting it in its present form, it should be made clear that we only accept it as second best to what we have advocated for a long time.

Mr. William Edwards: Would the hon. Gentleman not agree, as an ardent Common Marketeer, that to create a meat marketing board would cause further difficulty in trying to get Great Britain into the Common Market?

Mr. Mackenzie: I make the point, whether we go in or stay out. We are not dealing with the Common Market. The point is that we want a system of marketing. In that connection, we must have the regulation of imports. That is something which we have not got at the present time. Without that regulation I do not see how we can conduct orderly marketing or maintain stable prices, and regulation is something which we have not got in the Bill.
I welcome Part II of the Bill, dealing with amalgamations and boundary adjustments. In my opinion, that will give us more viable units. However, the incentives offered by the Government are quite inadequate if we are to see amalgamations and more units of a viable size.
I must point out that I do not approve of spending too much public money to create more very large units. While many hon. Members on these benches are in sympathy with the small farmer, I know that they see difficulties in administering this type of scheme. In the Highlands of Scotland, we have had this process of amalgamation going on for a long time, as the Secretary of State for Scotland, who is himself the largest landowner in the Highlands, knows perfectly well. Both under the administration of the Crofters' Commission and of officers of the Department of Agriculture, it has been going on for a number of years now, with the result that we have many more viable units than we had in the past. There is no difficulty in administering this type of scheme, and I cannot think of any possibility of a small unit being added to what is already a very large unit except where the physical features prevent it happening.
I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will take this into account and see to it that in the Highlands, where there is such a demand for small viable units, we do not spend too much public money on making very large units out of what are already small viable ones.
I also welcome the schemes for hill land. These are very important. This is where we think that we have the biggest potential for increased production. As the hon. Member for Berwick and East Lothian (Mr. Mackintosh) pointed out, at the present time we do not know where we are until the Common Market issue has been decided. However, we think that, if we are to maintain viable communities, we must encourage more production from the hills and keep the people there.
I also welcome the measures for the improvement in co-operative movements. These are very important, although I find that, in my part of the Highlands, where farmers believe in machinery sharing and in many other ways of co-operating, they find that, because of the vagaries of the weather, on many occasions it is difficult to make a success of the co-operative ownership of machinery and plant. However, in due course, farmers and smallholders will get used to the idea, and it is right that it should be encouraged in every possible way.
I come back to the National Plan. Some say that it has very little meaning. I hope that it has, because it spoke of expansion, and that is what we want. However, we must have incentives, and at the moment we lack them. The first essential is confidence, which we seem to have lost over the past 18 months. By confidence, I mean that we must be assured of a reasonable price for the end product. We are coming up to the Price Review now. If the Government want results from us, they must give us a very different Price Review from those which we have been getting over the past ten years.
I have no doubt that that is well known to the Minister and all members of the Government Front Bench. The coming Price Review is their opportunity, and I hope that the Minister will bear it in mind because, while we welcome the Bill, which has much to be said in its favour, notwithstanding that conditions have changed, it will all be of little avail if we are not to have a realistic and favourable Price Review.

5.27 p.m.

Mr. Gwynfor Evans: I want to look at the Bill from the standpoint of Wales. From that standpoint, it has many considerable merits. But I want to draw attention to what are dangers lying within it. They have been touched on today by some hon. Members who have contributed to the debate. They arise mainly from the very great powers of compulsion given to the Minister, to the proposed livestock board and rural development boards.
Everything now depends on how the Measure is to be administered. It is essential that the rural development boards should be composed of people who not only know their areas—and the Minister has given us the assurance that they will be so composed—but who will care for the area which their board is to serve, and sympathise with the area and its way of life.
I think of that particularly from the Welsh standpoint. The members of any board of this kind should have the confidence of the people of the area. In Wales, we have learned to suspect the bureaucratic approach, and occasionally we have been able to give the bureaucrats a lesson. I remember one occasion


when it was proposed by the Forestry Commission that some 40,000 acres should be taken over in the upper Towy valley as the first instalment of a plan to plant 1 million acres. The Commission was well defeated.
I can imagine a rural development board running into serious trouble if it were composed only or mainly of civil servants and/or agricultural economists who might be tempted to use the powers which they would have to force on the Welsh community concepts which are unacceptable and even repugnant to that community.
If a board is to succeed in Wales, it must be representative of the people of Wales and respect the social and organic life of lie community. Its emphasis must be on development and not on contraction. Unless the board acts in this way, it may become a mere instrument of what, despite the assurances which the Minister has tried to give us, still seem to many people to be the rather dubious intentions of the Government in the matter of farm structure.
It is here that the big question is raised by the Bill, and it is here that we and a great deal of disquiet amongst Welsh farmers. The major cause of this disquiet was the doubt which the Government seem to express in their White Paper with regard to the future of the one-man family farm as a viable unit. This is the typical unit of Welsh agriculture, and for us this is not just an agricultural problem, and certainly not just an economic one. For us it is first and foremost a social problem, as this kind of farm is the backbone of our way of life in rural Wales.
Reference has been made this afternoon to an article published in the Western Mail on the 9th of this month. The author was the Secretary of State for Wales, and it was entitled, "Why we want to squeeze out small farmers". The Welsh Office rushed to the defence of the Secretary of State and pointed out that the title was not the right hon. Gentleman's, but it was obvious that the Western Mail at any rate, which has many experienced journalists on its staff, thought that that title adequately and fairly represented the contents of the article. I know that hon. Gentlemen opposite take a different view, but I think that it was a fair description of the con-

tents of the article. If this is true, we could not have been told in a more brutal way just what the Government's policy is in this matter.
I do not think that it is the wish of the Minister himself to squeeze out the small farmer. I think that he has a great deal of personal sympathy with him, but I do not think that there are sufficient safeguards in the Bill to ensure that that does not happen. We know that agricultural economists have been pushing this for a long time. Incidentally, I note how many of our present academics in the field have been civil servants, and they are a powerful influence on the Government, and have been for many years. I suppose they are in all matters, but too often their standards are solely economic, and to apply them to Welsh society, and to apply them at all in this increasingly starving world, will be damaging and could be deadly.
Everything will depend on the way in which this Measure is operated. If it is conceived and pushed hard as a means of rationalising a declining industry, it could be disastrous, because agriculture is not a declining industry. The need for food is increasing, and will continue to do so, and a time may come when we will not be able to import cheap food any more. An increase in world population could cause the disappearance of food surpluses, even overnight. In the face of these prospects, agriculture should be kept inviolate for the future, and inviolate for the tremendous tasks with which it will have to cope in a generation's time. For this reason the industry must have stability, as well as efficiency, and stability is at least as important as efficiency in our present agricultural situation.
The most stable unit in our agricultural structure is the family farm. This is certainly true of Wales. The great depressions of the 'twenties and 'thirties and the last century failed to shake the one-man family farm. The depressions destroyed a host of larger units, but this small unit did not fall. If the powers conferred by the Bill were used in such a way that the one-man family farm disappeared, leaving only large concerns dependent on outside labour, and dependent on delicate expertise in management, that stability could be lost, and one can conceive of that kind of situation arising.


I think, therefore, that the encouragement of the one-man family farm in Wales must be a prime purpose of all agricultural policy.
Why should anybody want to squeeze it out anyway? Less than 5 per cent. of the people in Britain are employed in agriculture. In the Common Market, on average, 18 per cent. are employed in agriculture, and in the Common Market countries the average size of holding is only 25 acres. I think that there is a vital place for these small one-man family farms in our agricultural structure.
There is nothing more important in the structure of any industry than the means of entering into it as a profession. An analysis of structure which does not include this is scarcely worth having. It is difficult enough for a young man to start farming today, and if this Measure is used to secure ever larger minimum units, it is bound to become still more difficult for him to do so. In Wales most farms are owned by the occupiers. To buy and stock a farm which requires 600 man-days work per year—that is the sort of standard laid down in the White Paper—requires between £12,000 and £15,000 capital. This is beyond the means of any young man, unless he is a rich man's son. There is therefore a danger—it is no more than a danger but a real one—that the implementation of the Bill could seal off the industry from all except the rich, or perhaps even the very rich. I therefore think that everything will depend on the way in which this Measure is operated.

5.37 p.m.

Mr. Norman Haseldine: There are but few of my constituents who are concerned with agriculture, and apart from having represented the farming village of Marr on the Doncaster Rural District Council some years ago I can claim very little knowledge of agriculture, but as one who has been a student of co-operation for nearly 30 years, and been actively engaged in the Co-operative Movement, I rise to take up a little of the time of the House in order to make a few comments on the aspects of the Bill which deal with the co-operative principle.
I think that the extent of co-operative organisation within the industry is often

overlooked. Figures published in 1965 for English agricultural co-operative societies showed that there were 942 societies embracing 304,500 members, with a turnover of £192·3 million. In addition to these agricultural societies, it is worth bearing in mind that there are 29 co-operative retail societies, and two wholesale societies, which farm 55,000 acres, and that the value of their products in 1965 amounted to well over £4 million. I mention those figures because they illustrate the all-embracing aspect of co-operation bringing together not only the consumers—13 million of them in the retail societies—but also the producers.
The Co-operative Movement welcomes the Bill. For a number of years it has appreciated the need for a more orderly marketing system for meat, but it has been anxious that on any commission set up to control such a system consumer interests should be properly represented alongside the producers and the distributors, whether the trade be co-operative or private. The fact that the Bill provides for consumer committees is especially welcomed by the Co-operative Movement, and on reading the proceedings of Standing Committee A I was particularly pleased to note that the hon. Member for Torrington (Mr. Peter Mills) emphasised the part which he felt the consumer committees could play in this respect. From that angle his point is worth emphasising. He said that farmers do not like change, that they tended to produce what they wanted to produce, and not what the consumer required. He said that we must be sensitive to the needs of the consumer, and that in this respect the consumer committee could play a very large part.
This is welcome. It is a step in the right direction, and indicates that we are now becoming much more consumer-conscious and are bringing this point into our legislation. We must remember that in relation to future issues and negotiations on prices and incomes the Chancellor has stated that the consumer will have an interest. I congratulate the Government, and especially the Ministry of Agriculture, on their thinking in this regard.
Part IV, which provides for the setting up of a Central Council for Agricultural and Horticultural Co-operation, is


another welcome feature. The Minister knows that the Co-operative Party had some reservations on some aspects of this part of the Bill. We were anxious to see co-operative representation on the Council—people who are knowledgeable and have experience of the general co-operative idea, as well as those more narrowly interested from a purely agricultural co-operative angle.
We were also concerned about what we thought was a somewhat ambiguous and therefore unsatisfactory definition of a co-operative society and, finally, we were anxious that the Council should be given powers to assist supply co-operatives. I am happy to say that many of these problems and the queries that we had appear to have been satisfactorily answered by the Minister. As a spokesman for the Co-operative Movement in its all-embracing aspect, I take this opportunity to thank the Minister for his assurances on these matters.

5.43 p.m.

Mr. Henry Clark: As we reach the concluding stages of the Bill I feel almost like Edward Gibbon did when he finished his 18 years on the "Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire". One hopes that this monument to the Minister will not turn out to be a tombstone.
One is tempted to stretch the rules of order and try to discuss those matters which are of vital, every-day concern to the farmer. There will, however, be another opportunity later this evening to discuss some of the matters which vitally concern farmers in Northern Ireland. We have given such immense powers to the Minister that the opportunity should not now be missed of discussing how the Bill will be administered and trying to guide the steps of the Minister in the exercise of these powers. Most of my hon. Friends welcomed the speech made by the hon. Member for Berwick and East Lothian (Mr. Mackintosh), who emphasised that there were 15 new sorts of grant. The complexity of these grants steadily increases. It is enough to try the patience of Job, and certainly tries the patience of the average farmer.
Part I of the Bill does not apply to Northern Ireland, as the Meat and Livestock Commission will embrace only Great Britain. We in Northern Ireland

hope to have our own Meat Commission in the near future. Although I did not succeed in getting an Amendment accepted in Committee, I tried to emphasise the material interest which Northern Ireland has in the operation of Part I of the Bill, dealing with the personnel of the Meat Commission, and in the form which the schemes will take. I take this final opportunity to ask the Minister to remember that the bulk of the meat produced in Northern Ireland is exported to Great Britain and that the committees which the Commission will set up are of very great importance to us. When we have our own meat marketing commission I hope that there will be a formal link between the two boards, because only by proper planning—and Northern Ireland produces one in seven of the beef cattle produced in the British Isles—sshall we get the kind of co-operation that we need in the future.
Part II of the Bill directly concerns my part of the country. It deals with amalgamation. Since the Bill was in Committee I have obtained what appear to be more up-to-date figures. The size of the Minister's task needs no emphasis. There are in Northern Ireland 23,000 farms which can be classified as involving under 275 man-days per annum, approximately half of which are owned by farmers over 55 years of age, and many of them over 70. Those are the people who will be directly affected.
I thank the Minister for saying that he had begun to think that the figures laid down in the White Paper for grants to farmers when they left their farms were a little too low, and that he was going to increase them. I hope that I shall not have to come back when the schemes are published and say that the Minister has forgotten what he said to us today. I hope that he wins his battle with the Treasury, and that the grants will be between £1,000 and £1,500—the sort of grants paid to redundant people who had formerly been employed by the Ulster Transport Authority. The small farmer is no less entitled to compensation than the station master or the train driver.
The administration of this part of the Bill is immensely important. We can absorb farmers off the land into industry only at a certain rate. If they do not go into industry they will be unemployed.


They will be far better on their small farms, be they ever so non-viable and non-commercial, than being unemployed and having their manhood sapped away. We want young, active men coming off the land at a controlled rate.
The position is different where one is trying to persuade elderly persons to retire from the land. Where grants can be paid in cash, the man concerned must find a house in which to continue to live in reasonable comfort. It is very important that the Minister's schemes should be simple, and should be seen to be simple, and that they are published in a way which will be understandable to not always well educated people, who are not well up in the modern ways of forms and form filling.
It is very important that the Ministry should be prepared to give firm decisions whether or not a grant will be payable for the purchase of a certain piece of land. This decision must be given quickly when a piece of land comes into the market and a man is contemplating buying it, and before it finally comes up for sale. One wants to know before the bidding starts whether grants will be available. Ministry officers should be empowered to give firm decisions in hypothetical cases.
It is also vitally important that people, especially elderly people, who are leaving their farms should have proper financial advice. Many of them may be familiar with using quite large sums of money. However, when they take their "get out" grant, they may be handling and investing capital for the first time. They will need advice and the Ministry's officers should be able to tell people how to arrange their affairs in order to ensure a comfortable old age. It may be necessary to train special officers or to set up a branch to give this advice. People will only get the full advantage from these grants with good financial advice.
There are considerable restrictions in Schedule 4 of the Bill on the sale of land after amalgamation. The number of occasions when the Minister's permission must be sought could detract from the value of land unless we have a clear idea how he will exercise his discretion. We do not want to have to wait years to discover by precedent what

the Ministry will do in particular circumstances. We should have a clear statement of where and when the Minister will grant permission for small pieces of land to be sold from an amalgamated holding. Otherwise, many people will reject the grant because a covenant like this for 40 years to come will take away their land's full value.
Another point which I raised in Committee was not answered in a clear-cut way and I should be obliged for an answer now. If a Northern Ireland farmer sells to the Forestry Department of the Ministry of Agriculture, will this count as an amalgamation and will he be entitled to his grant or annuity? The Forestry Department is the largest single landowner in Northern Ireland and adding a smallholding to a holding of the Forestry Commission is clearly an amalgamation.
We shall probably not have a Rural Development Board in Northern Ireland. Clause 69 lays down the system whereby Northern Ireland can have one, and the White Paper said that in rural development board areas sales to the Forestry Commission will be amalgamations. But if we are not to have rural development boards, will this apply?
It is interesting to consider why Northern Ireland does not accept rural development boards. The people, of all sorts and all parties, have far too high an opinion of personal freedom to wish on themselves an autocratic authority of this kind. It is the fashion—sadly, the Minister followed it—to criticise the democracy in Northern Ireland, but we have a very firm belief in personal freedom. Farmers there did not spend 300 years getting rid of the landlords to have the landlords' powers replaced.
I am not exaggerating. The powers of the rural development boards are shocking. Consider Clause 44. Clause 46 looks like the enclosures all over again. The board can decide whether one plants or cuts down trees. These are autocratic powers exercised by a non-elected body. The Farmers' Union and all political parties that I know in Northern Ireland will not willingly accept autocracy like that. I almost expected to see, somewhere in the Schedule, a droit de seigneur granted to chairmen of boards.
We are not prepared to accept this, for another sound reason. At present, Northern Ireland's whole planning system is being reorganised and it will be impossible to incorporate this arbitrary system into planning which is in the melting pot. The Northern Ireland Ministry has made it clear that it does not intend to create such a board. I ask the Minister to look at this again. Clause 69 gives him considerable discretion to alter or amend the provisions of that part of the Bill.
We are particularly keen not to lose the money which would go with the rural development board. Money for opening up backward areas, improving roads and communications and giving rural electrification is needed in no part of the United Kingdom more than in the Glens of Antrim, the Sperrin Mountains, the lakeland of County Fermanagh and the Mountains of Mourne. I believe that this system of rural development boards could be adapted to suit our democratic feelings. It should be possible perhaps for the powers of the boards to be considered by a Select Committee of the Northern Ireland Parliament—

Mr. William Edwards: Why is the hon. and gallant Gentleman relenting from his original attitude towards these boards? Is he beginning to realise the great potential for creating a number of new sinecures in Northern Ireland which the boards represent?

Mr. Clark: That did not occur to me. I look forward to enjoying the hospitality of the Welsh boards, to which I am sure the hon. Member could introduce me.
We in Northern Ireland are not prepared to sell our freedom for a mess of potage. We are determined to keep our present rights, but we need the money to open up and develop our country. I therefore ask the Minister to open discussions with Mr. West, the Minister at Stormont, to see whether there is not a formula acceptable to people of Northern Ireland and the Farmers' Union to carry out, without autocratic powers, the objectives with which I entirely agree—developing the country, the forestry, the farming and the tourist potential and putting good Government money into these policies. I ask the Minister to look at that.
We had little time to deal with the parts of the Bill relating to co-operative

enterprise. We welcome the new Co-operative Council, which may do excellent work. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will not forget the fund of experience of co-operation built up by the older societies. When he appoints boards, I hope that he will draw on people who have spent their whole life in agricultural organisation and farm co-operation.
I would like him to remember that co-operation is not only a matter of societies with membership cards registered as friendly societies. It can mean two men working together. If we are to foster real co-operation on the land, it is often informal neighbouring groups which need encouragement as much as the more formal societies.
We were told at the beginning of the discussion of the Bill, many months ago, that it was, so to speak, a portmanteau Measure because it contained a number of different provisions. There have been occasions when many of us would prefer to describe it as a pantechnicon Measure because it contains everything but the kitchen sink. I hope that the length of the Bill and the way in which our discussions have been constantly curtailed will act as an example to the Government so that in future we shall never be presented with one Measure with so many diverse interests which prevent us from giving it proper discussion. The interests of agriculture would have been better served if we had had three shorter Bills, each dealing with a specific subject.

6.1 p.m.

Mr. Elystan Morgan: I am tempted to comment on some of the matters raised by the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Mr. Henry Clark) including those concerning the other side of the Irish Sea and not least his effervescent ideas concerning the establishment of the rural development boards, whose money he wants but whose powers he will not tolerate.
Due to the digressions of the party opposite, the Bill strolled through Committee at a rather rural pace. Nevertheless, I have no doubt that it will bring about many substantial changes in agriculture. I hazard the guess, however, that this piece of legislation will be better known for what it has caused to be commenced and set in train than for what it will achieve.
I am sure that the measures relating to the Meat and Livestock Commission and the development of hill farming and co-operation will be regarded as rather crude prototypes which will soon give way to more sophisticated machinery. Perhaps that will also be true of the rural development boards.
I am surprised that many hon. Gentlemen opposite—including the hon. Member for Windsor (Sir C. Mott-Radclyffe), the hon. Member for Carmarthen (Mr. Gwynfor Evans) and the hon. Member for Antrim, North—have shown so little enthusiasm for these boards. I would for my own part have wished to have seen them vested with more comprehensive powers and duties. They will be tackling a totality of diverse problems and we know, from experience of these problems, that if they are to be dealt with successfully they must be approached in a comprehensive way. If we are honest with ourselves, we will admit that the only way to tackle them is by vesting substantial powers, substantial functions and substantial finances in some central authority. There is no point in bellyaching about the powers which are vested if one is really anxious to see these problems resolved.
As I said in my maiden speech about eight months ago, I hope that the establishment of a Welsh Rural Development Board will soon lead to the acknowledgment that agriculture in Wales should be vested in the Secretary of State for Wales and the Welsh Office. I say that with no disrespect to my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, whose understanding of Welsh problems has been a source of inspiration to many of those who were members of the Standing Committee.

Mr. William Edwards: Does my hon. Friend still persist in that view after reading the speech delivered at Beaumaris?

Mr. Morgan: I will come to that. I plead, in relation to Wales, that a combination of various factors relating to Welsh agriculture, in addition to the background factor of the existence of Wales as a nation, demands that this important function be transferred to the Welsh Office at an early date.
Although there can be no doubt, in respect of the developments to which I have referred, that agriculture in particular and the public in general will welcome the proposals of the Government, I fear however that I cannot say the same about the part of the Bill which deals with farm structures. As we have heard, there is considerable doubt and suspicion in many quarters about future policies relating to changes in the pattern of farm structures.
Even those of us who were brought up in the country are aware of the absolute inevitability of change. The history of agriculture over the past 50 or 100 years shows that a steady process of consolidating farms into larger units has been taking place from time to time. Nevertheless, a great deal of harm has been done by those who have deliberately aroused suspicion about the motives of the Government in this connection. There is no point in saying that they believe that the Government are not vested with improper motives in regard to amalgamations, whilst at the same time they sow poisonous seeds of doubt at every opportunity.
I was not impressed with the facile argument of the hon. Member for Carmarthen about a heading which appeared in the Western Mail in regard to a speech at Beaumaris by the Secretary of State for Wales. Because a newspaper chooses a certain heading or title for an article it does not necessarily mean that it is fair in relation to that article. There is only one way of deciding in such a matter, and I challenge any hon. Gentleman opposite who has read that article to say that the title represented a fair description and summary of its content. I am grateful to my right hon. Friend the Minister for having gone out of his way to dispel fears which exist in Wales in this connection. For example, speaking at Brecon, my right hon. Friend said, according to a report in the Farmers' Weekly for the 27th January, that the process of the formation of larger commercial units
… is not spelling out the end of the small, one-man concern. We plan to keep him, through co-operation; and the farm business records scheme, which is designed to help him increase his profitability … the day of the small man has certainly not gone.
Those were just and noble words and what we expected of a Minister who is


carrying into execution the principles of the Agriculture Act, 1947, remembering the assurance given in Section 1 of that Statute of "proper remuneration and living conditions for farmers." That was put in such a way in that Act so as not to draw any distinction between big farmers on the one hand and small farmers on the other. It relates only to "farmers"—which means large and small farmers alike.
I plead, therefore, that all farmers who ar bona fide occupiers of agricultural holdings have been brought under the aegis of that Measure. It would be a sorry day for our rural areas if ever the ideal enshrined in Section 1 of the 1947 Act were abandoned in any assumed flourish of modernity.
The danger arises, however, with regard to the background mentality against which many of the assertions are made. The real danger is not so much that the wrong answer has been provided by the Ministry, but that the wrong question has been asked. The question which should be asked, and which would be entirely in line with the principles of the 1947 Agriculture Act, is, "How can we plan cur agricultural industry to give every bona fide farmer a decent remuneration consistent with a proper contribution to the general economy?" I have a great suspicion that from time to time the question which is asked is a different one, and reads, "How can we have our agricultural industry flourish and produce its greatest possible contribution to the national economy irrespective of the present pattern of agriculture in the United Kingdom?" For my part, I do not wish to see agriculture showing more flourishing results if the price of such an achievement is that only one farmer in every four, or one in every three, now in active agriculture would continue so to farm after certain changes have taken place.
As to the mentality which is a background to this argument, I challenge it with regard to small farms on at least three counts. In the first instance, statistics of farm structures in Britain are patently unfair. We hear quoted the facts that 10 per cent. of farms are responsible for nearly 50 per cent. of our agricultural products, and 50 per cent.

of farms give us only 8 per cent. of our agricultural products. Then we immediately assume that those in the second category are indolent or inefficient. But we are not comparing like with like. It is not always said that the 10 per cent. first mentioned occupy 40 per cent. of the land and that the 50 per cent. who are small farmers occupy only 10 per cent. of the land, and that the land occupied by that 10 per cent. comprises big farms and constitutes very good land. This is the land upon which wheat and barley are grown. There is no comparison at all between the land used by small farmers and the land farmed by the larger farmers in these statistics.
I plead that there is positive evidence to the contrary in regard to any theory of indigenous inefficiency in small farms. In Committee I had occasion to quote the figures given by Mr. Wallace Day in Farm and Country in August, 1965. Farms with an acreage of between 20 and 50 acres have an average net income per acre per annum of £21·03, those of 50 to 100 acres have an average net income per acre per annum of £18·03, those of 100 to 150 acres have £10·74, and those of 150 to 200 acres have £8·5 per acre. Anyone with a practical knowledge of the condition of small farms would readily admit that the intensity of operations on those farms is such as to make quite certain that the actual yield per acre is higher than that in the larger farms.
Lastly, and this I think is the most substantial of all reasons against any policy of indiscriminate amalgamation, we must remember that agriculture is very different from a pure industry, and is much more than a food factory to the State. It is a way of life, a repository of certain values and outlooks. It is the main structure of a rural society. In Wales, 83 per cent. of farms are below the 600 standard man day unit per annum. Probably in my constituency 90 per cent. of the farms are under that limit. It would cause me no joy, whatever be the benefits gained, to see the destruction of that community be it for the greater glory of the bureaucrats of Brussels or for any other reason. I do not want to see an epitaph for my county on the lines of Oliver Goldsmith's words:
Ill fares the land, to hast'ning ills a prey, Where wealth accumulates, and men decay.

6.15 p.m.

Mr. Paul Hawkins: I am glad to have the opportunity to say a few words on the final stages of this Bill. I shall comment on a few of the speeches which have been made this afternoon, and I first congratulate the hon. Member for Berwick and East Lothian (Mr. Mackintosh) on a most refreshing speech. All the subsidies to which he referred have become far too complicated and have led to considerable distortions of the market. I urge any Minister of Agriculture, of whatever political party, to try to cut down the number of these subsidies and grants and to apply the amounts of money involved to the end product. I am sure that then there would be far less distortion of market prices.
The problems of the small farmer have been eloquently dealt with by those who represent what is sometimes derogatorily referred to as the "Celtic fringe", the hon. Members for Carmarthen (Mr. Gwynfor Evans) and Ross and Cromarty (Mr. Alasdair Mackenzie), and my hon. Friend the Member for Antrim, North (Mr. Henry Clark). In the East we also have small farmers. These amalgamation schemes have caused considerable disquiet among smallholders in my part of the world. There are over 30,000 acres held by the county council in Norfolk and most of the holdings are under 35 acres. As has been recently said, they are producing, much more per acre than larger neighbouring farms.
Economists sometimes sneer and say we must have large farms because they are more viable and economic, but we have reached a dangerous point when only 5 per cent. of the total population of the country earn their living from the land. This is where I disagree with the hon. Member for Cardigan (Mr. Elystan Morgan), because with 18 per cent. to 20 per cent. of the population in Europe engaged in agriculture we would have a very strong political pull should we go into the Common Market. The more people engaged in agriculture the more effective would be our political pull on farm prices.
The hon. Member for Bradford, West (Mr. Haseldine) spoke about the interests of consumers who are to be represented on the Livestock Commission. I hope

that they will there learn a few facts of life. Consumers should learn that they have been receiving food at far less than its world value. They should learn to pay more for their food whether we go into the Common Market or not. I hope the hon. Member will lend his weight to trying to educate consumers as to the real value of food from our farms.
I am sorry that the Minister is not here, because I want to express my personal thanks to him for announcing that he will introduce later an Amendment to deal with the position of leased tractors. A constituent of mine raised this matter with me and I canvassed it in Committee. One of the Parliamentary Secretaries was as helpful as he could be, but his officials obviously told him to refuse. I am glad that our arguments on Report convinced the Minister and that he has agreed to introduce an Amendment at this late stage.
I agree with the Minister that this is an important Bill as a whole. What can be said without argument on either side is that it will not overnight, or for many years, make any one fanner better off. It may lay the foundations for an improvement in the future, but it will not improve the standard of living of the farming community for several years. What is wanted now is a quick injection of money into the industry. This is something which not only the livestock side of the industry is suffering from. The price of the end product does not leave enough profit to make farming worth while in many parts of the country.
I hope that the Bill will lay the foundations for improvements in the future. Meantime, I hope that three things can be done. First, although I may be being very hopeful, I trust that at the next Price Review we shall try to improve the state of the livestock industry, if we can improve nothing else. Prices for livestock have declined so much that in a large part of my constituency hardly any cattle are being fattened. Secondly, I hope that the Bill, with its emphasis on co-operation, can lead to co-operation between the N.F.U., the N.U.A.W. and the C.L.A., in an effort to secure a basis for fanning which does not rest on low earnings for agricultural workers and which is not based upon a miserable return of about 1 per cent. on investment in land. We must aim at a


return for farmers sufficient to pay at least 4 per cent. on their capital invested and also a fair return for the worker in the industry This can come only from increased profitability in farming.
Thirdly, the levy system advocated by this side of the House is the best system to turn to now because, with subsidies, we fall back on the Treasury's good will. Time and time again the Treasury has put the squeeze on the Ministry and has prevented a fair return being given at the Price Review. If we could turn to the levy system, whether or not we enter the Common Market, the industry would be much better off.
Though I have damned the Bill with faint praise, I nevertheless wish to thank the Minister for his courtesy throughout the whole of this long procedure and thank him again for his willingness to introduce an Amendment to deal with the matter I brought to his notice.

6.24 p.m.

Mr. Bert Hazell: I have pleasure in supporting the Third Reading. When the Bill was introduced in November, 1965, a member of the Opposition termed it a puny Measure. Those of us who sat on the Standing Committees which considered the first Bill and this Bill will agree that, if it was puny in content, the length of time it took to debate various aspects of it proves that this is a much larger Measure than some people thought.
The Bill contains a number of Parts. Criticism has been levelled today at the fact that it is a Bill of five different Parts which should have been contained in separate Measures, but the fact remains that the Bill has enabled the Minister to present to the House at one fell swoop a number of issues affecting many aspects of agriculture and horticulture. Had he not taken advantage of the opportunity which presented itself to him from the Bill being drawn in this way, some aspects which might have an influence on the industry in future might not have been brought before the House for some considerable time.
My right hon. Friend the Minister, who served with Tom Williams when he introduced the 1947 Measure, which subsequently became known as almost the bible for British agriculture to those of us who served for many years on county

agricultural executive committees, has obviously in presenting the Bill accepted the mantle of his worthy predecessor.
I think that all of us have lived too close to the Bill to appreciate or recognise the influence it will have on the industry in future. The Meat and Livestock Commission will set a new pattern in the marketing of meat and in the presentation of that meat to the consumer. Despite the controversy which has raged for some time over Clause 9, this portion of the Measure is widely welcomed. I was interested to note that the conference of the National Farmers' Union last week approved of that aspect of the Bill.
In future, when the Commission gets to work, the housewife may be able to buy meat knowing its description and probably knowing full details of the price. As the Commission gets to work, it will be of benefit to the producer. I believe that it will be of assistance to the butcher. I certainly believe that in the long run it will be of assistance to the consumer.
There is a weakness in this Part of the Bill. Here I have some sympathy with the Opposition. I wish that imports had been dealt with. I understand the reason for my right hon. Friend's not accepting imports as part of the proposals, but it does not necessarily follow that I accept his views on this subject. In due course, amending legislation may well be necessary to deal with imports.
The industry has welcomed the fact that improvement grants are to be much more widely spread. I know this is so because of the large number of applications which have been made to the Ministry for grants. I hope that farmers applying for the grants will take all the advice possible through the N.A.A.S. and from Ministry officials so that buildings are erected which can be multi-purpose. We live in a changing industry. Buildings which may be suitable for today's operations may have another requirement placed upon them tomorrow. I hope, not only that more research will be undertaken into buildings, but that farmers seeking grants and undertaking the erection of buildings will obtain the maximum possible advice so that they do not make mistakes in erecting the buildings.
There are aspects of the Bill we should have liked to have discussed in a wider


context, but we cannot ignore the Ruling given by Mr. Deputy Speaker earlier this afternoon. Many people in the industry are wondering how far certain aspects of the Bill will be implemented if we enter the Common Market. I do not think that any one of us can ignore this situation, for we are in the midst of a probing operation and we wonder what will be the ultimate impact and outcome on our agricultural and horticultural industries.

Mr. Michael Jopling: Would not the hon. Member agree that the surprise which many of us on this side of the House had, and particularly my right hon. Friend, when the Minister failed to mention this point, was entirely justified?

Mr. Hazell: I am not in a position to answer for my right hon. Friend. He raised the matter with Mr. Deputy Speaker, and Mr. Deputy Speaker gave his Ruling. Nevertheless, it is true to say that many of us are worried. We wonder, not only in connection with this Measure but also with the 1947 and 1957 Acts, how far the Bill will be implemented if and when we join the Common Market. However, I must move on from that point.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member has anticipated me. He must move on.

Mr. Hazell: Yes, Mr. Speaker. At any rate, I got that point in. Many of the proposals are, of course, long term in their application. This applies to the amalgamation grants. Obviously the effect of amalgamation cannot and will not be seen immediately upon amalgamation. The effect must, of course, be a long-term one. I should like to re-emphasise the comment of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Norfolk, South-West (Mr. Hawkins) that despite the assurance given, there is still concern among small farmers that they will be compulsorily amalgamated. Nothing in the context of the Bill is further from that thought. Grants will be paid where amalgamations are taking place on a voluntary system. We should not close our eyes to the fact that, whether or not this section is in the Bill, amalgamations have been going on for some considerable time, and would go on in the future irrespective of the Clause. The Clause will help those most anxious to get out, but who are somewhat con-

cerned about the financial implications. Regarding the hon. Gentleman's statement about small holdings under local authorities, he should be aware, as we all are, that this is the subject of a separate report, the Wise Report, which will no doubt be debated at an early date.
The creation of farm co-operatives is warmly appreciated. I look forward to seeing not just the creation of masses of small co-operatives, but farmers linking themselves up with existing co-operatives. Only by so doing will they be able to secure advice and help, be able to acquire their raw materials, and be able to sell their products to their best advantage. I was grateful that we have managed to secure a Second Reading of a Private Member's Bill dealing with finance for co-operatives, because it is definitely linked.
Finally, I welcome on behalf of the organised workers of this country that section of the Bill empowering agricultural wages boards to negotiate payment of wages while a man is sick. I cannot say more at this stage because of the time, but on behalf of the workers I represent I warmly welcome this provision which could have a lasting impact on the industry.

6.34 p.m.

Viscount Lambton: Many of us on this side of the House were pleased to hear the speech made by my northern neighbour, the hon. Member for Berwick and East Lothian (Mr. Mackintosh). It is rather pleasing to see that the vigorous attitude of the Berwickshire farmers seems to have moulded the hon. Member for Berwick and East Lothian into expressing opinions which might well have been expressed by his predecessor, Sir William Anstruther-Gray. This is a somewhat surprising fact considering how divergent they were at the election.
I should like to raise a question on Section 65 of the Bill which reads that
… Ministers shall have power, with the approval of the Treasury, to afford veterinary services, including diagnostic services, whether free of charge or not, to persons who carry on livestock businesses and participate in arrangements approved by the Ministers as being satisfactory arrangements.
I should like to find out from the Minister, or whoever winds up the debate,


how this new section of the Bill would have applied to a happening which occurred last summer on Lord Ravensworth's farm near Whittingham in Northumberland. On this occasion it became necessary to kill—

Mr. Speaker: I doubt whether we can discuss on Third Reading how the Bill would have applied in the past.

Viscount Lambton: Is it out of order to ask how this affects practical agriculture?

Mr. Speaker: If the hon. and noble Gentleman puts it that way, yes.

Viscount Lambton: That is precisely what I was trying to do. What occurred on that occasion was that a number of animals were killed or were presumed to be killed by a 22 Colt revolver; but instead of being actually killed, many of those animals were stunned and came round later. They had to be killed by the humane killer. I should like to ask the Minister whether or not this type of thing will be avoided under Clause 65 of the Bill. Perhaps the Minister will be able to inform the House on this important matter, because here there is a distinct gap between intention and efficiency. There is every need to carry out the intention of the Bill, to see that satisfactory arrangements are made for keeping stock in good health and, as far as is practicable, free from disease.

6.37 p.m.

Mr. Peter Mills: This has been an interesting debate, and, indeed, it has been an interesting Bill. Most of us who were on the Committee counted it a privilege to have taken part in the discussions. We have not always agreed, but at least the discussions have been carried out in a friendy way, which I think is to the good.
The Bill is divided into five major parts: meat marketing, farm structure, hill land, co-operation—and then there is a miscellaneous section. I only hope that the farming community as a whole realises all that this implies. It seemed to me when I questioned farmers, that they were hazy about the whole purpose of this Agriculture Bill. Surely the question that farmers must be asking themselves is. "What is this going to do for me? What is this going to do for the prosperity of British agriculture and for our

country? What is it going to do to help our balance of payments problems?"
It is true that there are in the Bill very constructive proposals for British agriculture which, of course, we all welcome. But is this enough? Will it help solve the present extremely difficult problem that is facing agriculture? I do not think it will. Will it overcome the mood of despondency among many farmers? Time and time again there is mention in the Bill of uncommercial farms. I am wondering whether under present conditions the Bill will help make many farms viable and profitable again. I doubt it very much. I believe that what is needed now is a substantial increase in tariffs on finished products. That is why I am grateful to one or two hon. Members who have already made this point.
It is not enough to say that we will give a grant on this or that building, as is set out in the Bill. It is not enough to say that help will be given with better marketing arrangements. It is not enough to say that farmers will be helped to keep better records and be shown better ways of conducting their business. That time has almost gone. What is needed is a better price at the end so that they can do these things themselves. My criticism is that the Bill is too late. It will not help farmers to regain the serious loss of fertility in their land which has taken place over two or three years. It does nothing to encourage better husbandry, and that is an important and serious omission. It must be emphasised that the Government's proposals about farm structure are no substitute for the need to determine guaranteed prices at a level which will ensure an adequate return to a full-time farmer.
I turn to the small farmer, whom I hope to represent. Amalgamation is the aspect of the Bill which will probably concern him most of all. Amalgamations of uneconomic small units into viable large units must be a desirable objective where feasible, but I issue the warning that great care is needed in the whole business of amalgamations. It is easy enough to look at a map and say what must be done and it is easy enough for civil servants and planners to say that it should be done, but great care is needed or great hardship will be caused to many small farmers, and in the process it will be very expensive for the Government


and others concerned. All sorts of factors enter into the process of amalgamation and the Government would be wise to tread very carefully along this path. Amalgamations will take place naturally, for economic factors are bound to cause them. But it must be remembered that the small farmer still has a great part to play as long as his unit is viable and as long as he is prepared to modernise and to move with the times.
It is worth remembering that there is a place for part-time farmers, who have not been much mentioned in the debate. In certain areas they are necessary. There is farming plus the holiday trade, plus caravans and so on. There is farming plus fishing and there is farming plus the roadside garage. These people should not be dismissed, for they have a part to play.
I remind the Government, as we did in Committee, that amalgamations can produce social problems. Ideally it would be nice to be able to wave a magic wand and provide amalgamations overnight, but that is not possible and men need to be found alternative jobs while the process is going on, and those jobs are not always so easily found, particularly in the South-West. In remote areas it will be difficult to carry out amalgamations when there is very little but farming to turn to. The process is not as easy as it might look and as the planners might think. I am certain that amalgamations will take place, but I am also certain that economic pressures and forces will force them to happen. There are definite advantages in certain amalgamations, but any violent move to speed up the process and artificially to alter the whole structure of the industry would be costly, unwise and unjustified.
Most hon. Members who were members of the Standing Committee know my objections to the Bill. I intensely dislike Clause 9 and I believe that in years to come the Minister will regret the day he brought it in. At the moment, he may be pleased and happy to have it under his belt, but I am not so certain that he will be if these powers are used later, and certainly agriculture will be the poorer if they are.
My other violent objection is to the rural development boards which, I

believe, would be totally unnecessary if only encouragement were given to existing bodies and if the Government produced the right climate so that private enterprise could flourish. The Government are not creating the right climate for private bodies and private enterprise to do the job which they should be doing. Only today I was talking to a senior civil servant in the West Country who agreed with me that if there were encouragement and finance so that the right climate was produced, there would be no need for these rural development boards.
The Bill goes on its way, good in parts and very bad in others. After all that has been said—and much has been said—my criticism is that it will not solve agriculture's present economic problems. Only substantial increases in the prices of end products will do that job, and the Bill just does not do it.

6.47 p.m.

Sir John Gilmour: As someone who was not a member of the Standing Committee, perhaps I ought to declare an interest as being one who might receive some of the subsidies and grants which are outlined in the Bill, and I therefore in a way welcome the fact that it is getting nearer to the day when these payments can he made with the full authority of Parliament.
It was very apparent to me as soon as the debate started, particularly while listening to the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan), who seemed to have been very well indoctrinated by his constituents during the Christmas Recess, that there were many weaknesses in the Bill, not least the fact that the livestock and crofting industries were in a parlous state. While it is quite true that Clause 12 provides for the payment of the beef cow subsidy, there is no amount of subsidy to farmers which can possibly encourage them to go on breeding cattle unless in the long run the cattle industry is profitable, and that is what is not apparent and what is not happening. The hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland pointed out the disastrous fall in the prices of livestock and, as the Secretary of State for Scotland will know, there was a fall in the price of fat cattle in Scotland again last week and it is below the level of


last year. Therefore, unless steps are taken to implement what is in the Bill with steps to make the cattle industry profitable, everything else will be wasted.
I want to turn shortly to Clause 42, because the Minister of Agriculture laid stress on the long-term assurance given to hill farmers. This is of the greatest importance. Those of us who farm in more favourable circumstances can alter our plans from year to year to increase our acreage of potatoes, or to grow more sugar beet, or to grow more cereals, or do something else to redress the balance upset by difficult trading conditions. But the hill farmer has no opportunity to do this. He has only one means of support and that is the livestock industry. If there is a long-term assurance and if at the same time the Prime Minister says that he means business about going into the Common Market—and many members of the National Farmers' Union are saying that if we go into the Common Market, all payments such as the hill cow subsidy will have to go—then the long-term assurances about livestock are not worth the paper on which they are written. I hope that the Secretary of State for Scotland will be able to tell us what the Government have in mind for places like hill farms if these changed circumstances come about. That is what is worrying people in Scotland and all upland areas throughout the country. The Bill can be welcomed, but only if other actions are taken to implement its spirit.

Mr. Jopling: When I listened to the beginning of the debate I was, like many of my hon. Friends, profoundly shocked that the Minister made no reference to the implications of joining the European Economic Community.

Mr. Speaker: Order. We cannot debate on this Bill the implications of joining the Common Market.

Mr. Jopling: I am sorry, Mr. Speaker. I understood from your previous Ruling that it was possible to make reference to the implications, but that one could not necessarily expect the Minister to reply specifically to points.

Mr. Speaker: On this Bill, the hon. Member may make reference to, but not

debate, the implications of joining the Common Market.

Mr. Godber: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. In your absence, Mr. Deputy Speaker gave guidance, for which we are grateful, when, on the point that certain provisions of the Bill could help or impede our entering the Common Market, I tried to make a few comments, as did some of my hon. Friends, specifically in relation to the Bill. I hope that you would not rule that out.

Mr. Speaker: That is quite all right. But hon. Members cannot debate on the Bill the general issue of the Common Market.

Mr. Jopling: I am sorry, Mr. Speaker. I did not intend to debate that, but wished to comment that I was surprised that a certain thing had happened. I suppose that as the Minister is making one of the quickest back-pedals in recent political history, it is hardly surprising that he does not want to mention it.
After debating the Bill and the previous similar Bill over the past 14 months, I find it very pleasant at this stage to be able to step back from the details and individual Clauses and take a long, cool look at it. I am very happy to be able to take a broad look at the state of the industry, as it is affected by the Bill's provisions.
I want to concentrate on the part of the Bill which refers to, and will have effect in, the hill and marginal land areas, and to confine myself to those areas and the Bill's implications for them. My first reason for doing so is that a vast proportion of my constituency is composed of hill and marginal land areas. My second is that I think that this is the part of the industry where the greatest possible concern is felt at the moment. It is in those areas that help is most desperately needed now.
I welcome the Minister's statement today that he very much wanted to give whatever help he could to the hill and marginal land areas. I also welcome his efforts—or some of them—to do that. For instance, one of the grants he singled out was in the Clause which gives grants for improvements benefiting hill land. We all welcome that sort of grant.
But the Government are not going far enough at this stage to help alleviate the real crisis which has arisen in those areas. When one has debated the Bill and its effects, and seen what has happened in the hill and marginal land areas during that time, one cannot over-emphasise the crisis in them at present. The House has already been acquainted with the disastrous store cattle and store sheep prices in the autumn. I do not want to go through the details of the extremely bad price levels in the autumn months. Lambs in my constituency, in Ambleside, have been sold in the past few months for 10s. each. The Minister has said that that was only a temporary situation, but he should have realised that in the three months between September and November a temporary situation, as he described it, is for people who produce store cattle and sheep, exactly the same as a crisis lasting 12 months for somebody producing milk.
The Minister has also said that we must not talk ourselves into a crisis. When he said that, I believe that the crisis already existed, and it was something we had to be very careful about. The Bill does not go far enough to help farmers in hill and marginal land areas. I do not believe that the Ministers and architects of the Bill have been sufficiently aware of the situation in those areas which has caused the crisis. I do not believe that the architects of the Bill have been in proper touch with farmers' feelings, particularly in the northern counties of England, of which I know something. They have been strangely and ominously quiet in the past few months.
I have heard the Minister say that farmers are not as upset as certain people say that they should be and are. I think that the National Farmers' Union has been acting extremely strangely over the present crisis in the hill and marginal land areas, and I criticise its leadership for its attitude. The silence is somewhat ominous for those areas. If the Minister talks to individual farmers, and they think that they are talking privately, he will realise that their financial worries and the financial crisis which has built up in recent weeks are to be taken very seriously.
Hon. Members on both sides of the House have spoken about the present

level of confidence in agriculture. Confidence has been very severely battered in the industry during the past 18 months. Whatever the Minister says, his policies caused a considerable loss of confidence among hill and marginal land farmers in that period.
What does the Bill do for those people? How does the Minister face up to the crisis and loss of confidence in those areas? When I suggested to him that the group of farmers hardest hit by economic circumstances were those who are not in the areas receiving hill subsidies but in areas just below that level—farmers with farms just too good to qualify for the hill subsidies—he admitted that he accepted my suggestion. That is on the record, and I can show him the reference.
But when one considers the Bill, one must ask oneself what it tries to do, and will do, to help farmers, particularly in the marginal land areas, who do not qualify for the hill subidy. I suppose the Minister's answer would be that he has introduced the beef cow subsidy. That is an interesting and useful measure to promote greater production of beef. But it will promote increased beef production throughout the whole industry. But I cannot help feeling that it is a somewhat expensive way of getting more beef, particularly from the lower areas. It might have been better, and I might have applauded rather harder, if he had not introduced that type of subsidy but had devoted the money involved to the hill and marginal land areas for beef production. He might have got much the same increased production, and yet scattered his largesse where it was more appreciated. It is of fundamental importance that a prosperous agriculture in these areas should be brought about. It is essential for the social structure.
At the same time, other sorts of help and thought should be given to these areas to see in what ways they can be made more prosperous besides the purely agricultural consideration. The right hon. Gentleman's answer to this is to produce the rural development boards. I do not believe that this is the proper way to provide this extra non-agricultural help in the hill and marginal farm areas.
We on this side unanimously reject these sweeping compulsory powers, which might well make the boards feared and resented. Quite rightly, the hon. Member


for Carmarthen (Mr. Gwynfor Evans) said that if the Minister is not careful and if the composition of the boards is of people unfamiliar with these areas, the boards will become feared and their good efforts might not be realised. The boards may well be brought into complete contempt in the countryside if they start using their compulsory powers. We completely reject these powers.
I am disappointed that the right hon. Gentleman has refused to lay down a maximum period in which the boards are allowed to own land. In spite of all this, some of the functions of the boards are useful. It is a good thing that someone should perform the functions with which the boards are charged, although I cannot believe that it is necessary to set up a new bureaucratic organisation for the purpose.
It is important that more effort be made in forestry. Forestry is a useful industry in rural areas where there is danger of depopulation. It has a high labour demand which is extremely helpful in keeping people in the rural areas, particularly those close to the hills. More thought could well be given to integrating forestry more into the economy of farming—into the tenant farmer economy. I know there are difficulties, but this subject is worth more thought.
I welcome the right hon. Gentleman's statement that there will be no discrimination against private foresters because there has been a suspicion that the establishment of the boards would mean a green light to a great expansion of the Forestry Commission. Whilst one does not necessarily preclude this in all circumstances, one hopes that private foresters, who are much more efficient than the Forestry Commission, will get a fair crack of the whip.
More could well be done in these rural areas by the promotion of rural industries. At the moment, the Rural Industries Bureau and the Rural Industries Loan Fund do extremely valuable work in promoting small industries in the rural areas. This is an activity to which more local advice and effort might be put.
This is an exasperating Bill. As my hon. Friend the Member for Torrington (Mr. Peter Mills) said, some of it is useful and some of it is downright terrible. Clause 9, dealing with the com-

pulsory powers of the Meat and Livestock Commission, is bad and so are the compulsory powers of the rural development boards. It has been strange to see the Government's behaviour during the progress of this Bill and its predecessor over the last 14 months. They have delayed going on with it when it has been important that they should do so. I see the Secretary of State for Scotland scowling at me.

The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. William Ross): Hear, hear.

Mr. Jopling: The Government were extremely slow last June in getting the Bill into Committee. They waited six weeks. They did not get on with it before Christmas and they have not given us a fair chance to get the advantages of the grants and subsidies to farmers as soon as possible. At the same time, it is fair to say that no one in the Government could accuse us of not having gone at a pretty fair gallop. I hope that when the Bill gets on the Statute Book, it will do a good deal more good than some of us suspect. That is the kindest thing I can say about it.

7.7 p.m.

Mr. J. E. B. Hill: I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland (Mr. Jopling) in regretting the Government have given such a low priority to the Bill that, in the Standing Committee—of which I was not a member—it has gone off a bit. It is tainted with a good deal of Socialist dogma which has rubbed off on to the Meat and Livestock Commission. We have also heard much about the notorious Clause 9, with powers to make
… provisions compelling or encouraging the elimination of excess capacity …
and
… a reduction in the number of undertakings.
In plain words, this is giving powers to put people out of their jobs, and it is wrong that such powers should be given. It is an interesting order of words. Notice that "compelling" is put before "encouraging". It is a sign of the times.
Where are all the disinterested experts to come from whom the Minister hopes to appoint to the Meat and Livestock Commission? Perhaps we can be given some indication of when he will be in a


position to announce their names. I hope that the members of the Commission will not dissipate their energies in too many directions at once.
The all-important priority, whether it is to do with beef or bacon, is to procure a steady improvement in livestock quality. If we concentrate on getting that right, much else will fall into pace. But much of the machinery being set up is cumbrous and unnecessary. Clause 9, which gives compulsory powers to eliminate someone's business, will probably be too slow and controversial in its method, with protracted negotiations, and probably the same result could more rapidly come about, with less fuss and bitterness, by the simple operation of normal economic and market forces. The less efficient premises would probably be sold or used for something else in the ordinary course of commercial change and redevelopment.
Clause 12, dealing with the beef cow subsidy, involves farmers in mastering and operating the details of yet another agricultural scheme. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Viscount Lambton) in his trenchant criticism of the Government's policy, I, too, hope that all this administrative effort and calculation will prove worthwhile, but will it achieve anything that a better price for beef would not achieve more quickly?
The Bill is weakest when it deals with farm improvements and the alleged promotion of agricultural investment. In a recent speech, the Minister praised this capital intensive industry, pointing out that agriculture is averaging over £175 million of fixed capital investment per year.
This Bill does little to procure more capital, or, as many Members have pointed out, to restore the confidence without which farmers will not borrow or venture more capital. Whatever the Minister says, it is practically certain that the trend of farm improvement and the volume of fixed investment is now declining. Talking of farming reminds me that I would belatedly like to thank the Minister. Much to my surprise on Report he accepted an Amendment on grass in the early morning. I was so surprised that the Government had accepted an Amendment that I was struck

dumb and I should now like to proffer my belated thanks.
It is wrong to cut the rates in the Farm Improvement Scheme, which has done more to modernise the outlook and the structure of British agriculture over the last 10 years than anything else. The reshaping of agricultural buildings and the layout of farm fields have been the biggest labour savers and have been quite indispensable to the introduction and use of modern farm machinery. There is still a great deal to do and it is all very relevant to our need to make our agriculture become fully competitive with Europe.
If the Minister found himself powerless to defend the Farm Improvement Scheme in toto against a Labour Chancellor it would have been a great deal simpler and wiser to have kept the one-third rate of grant and restricted the scope of the scheme to essentials. Take the case of farm buildings—it could have been restricted to roof and exterior walls and floor. I would have left the more fussy details and the specialist provisions to the farmer. After all, they are often short lived, apt to change with new ideas and new occupiers or a new style of farm. This would have had the advantage of keeping out a great deal of the more tiresome and trivial details which have made the administration of the scheme sometimes difficult and slow.
The investment grants, despite the increased rates for plant and machinery which the Minister has announced, will certainly leave the industry worse off. They will not help the small farmer to any substantial extent. The Minister's repeated emphasis of his power to vary these rates is merely a tacit admission of their present inadequacies. The time will come when the farmer is replacing a piece of machinery for the second time and he will be shaken to find the size of the balancing charge which he will incur, which will make it more difficult for him to pay for the future second replacement.
Nothing "browns off" a farmer more than having to do unproductive paper work indoors which is demonstrably unnecessary. The farmer whom the Government profess most to care for, the moderate-sized to small farmer is usually his own clerk. If he has a secretary or


book-keeper, it is often his wife. The danger of this Bill is that both these types of farmer may feel themselves to be playing an endless game of beggar-my-neighbour with different divisions of the Ministry of Agriculture, the Treasury and the Inland Revenue. Both have always got plenty of other things to do.
Elswhere in the Bill, in Clause 64, the Government are rightly encouraging the keeping of proper farm business records. These are needed to promote efficiency and to measure the profitability of the different enterprises of a farm. Has the Minister really thought how tiresome the application for a tractor, for example, will be? The instructions cover three pages and so much does it savour of a farm improvement scheme that Paragraph 7 stresses that no prior approval will be required before the purchase of the machine. That is jolly decent of the Minister, I must say! A fanner can go and buy a tractor without first asking permission. Thank you very much.
The instructions are complicated. One sentence, which again shows the tenor of the scheme says:
If, therefore, it is intended to apply for grant, these documents"—
that is, receipted invoices,
must be obtained and retained.
The grant is not transferable. Yet the tractor grant is to be paid in two instalments, with about 18 months between them. If the machine is sold, any outstanding instalments will be lost. What happens if a fanner dies or goes bankrupt with an instalment outstanding, or if he is forced out of his business by some sudden compulsory purchase? This is not in the explanatory pamphlet. Is his estate to lose the benefit of the second instalment of the grant? The instructions might make that clear.
I am glad to welcome in Part IV further encouragement to co-operative activities. I realise that the Minister is doing his best to keep this movement going and to encourage it in every possible way. But the Chancellor is working against him. What sense can there be in encouraging co-operation, on the one side, with grants and imposing Selective Employment Tax on farming and horticultural co-operative associations, on the other? It is such a conflict of purpose and action in which the Government seem

continually to be saying one thing and doing another.
Like some of my hon. Friends, I could wish that the Minister had used this great opportunity provided by the Bill to have begun to reorient our agricultural policy so that it is in harmony with the practices in the Common Market. The Bill makes singularly little progress in that direction, nor does it greatly help our agriculture to make the increased contribution to our balance of payments that would be open to it, given the right encouragement. I have a growing impression that this is where I came in 20 years ago.
We seem to be returning to an atmosphere of controls and regulations, at a time not of shortages but of plenty. The Socialist approach to agriculture breeds controls and the Government mind everyone's business except their own. Much of this Bill is heavy plumduff with a mighty lot of duff and precious few plums. I believe that we will have a hard job picking them out.

7.19 p.m.

Mr. Anthony Stodart: I should like to start on a personal note and to say that I am glad to see, at the last stage of this Bill, the former Minister of State, Scottish Office, the Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Willis) sitting, if not, to my regret, on the Front Bench, at least in another place. I remember with some nostalgia the way in which I was interrupted by him in his inimitable style in each of the Second Reading debates, some considerable time ago. When the Bill was first introduced, I dare say that there were few of us who did not expect that it would go down in the annals as the 1966 Agriculture Act. For reasons which I am far too delicate to go into—they have been touched on by one or two of my hon. Friends—it will quite clearly be spoken of mellifluously, in the same breath as the 1947 and the 1957 Acts. I am certain that the hon. Member for Enfield, East (Mr. John Mackie) would confirm my saying that there is not the slightest chance that this will be as good a vintage as either of those other not uncelebrated years.
Each of those Acts had a theme. The 1947 Act gave guaranteed prices and


assured markets in return for good management and husbandry of agricultural holdings. That was the theme that ran through it. The 1957 Act introduced the Farm Improvement Scheme and the development of the pig industry, linking up with those guaranteed prices and assured markets.
There is no theme whatever running through today's Bill. There is no cohesion about it. Livestock and meat marketing are no relations of farm structure. It is true that hill land has a bit to do with each of them, but co-operative activities seem to me to be way out on a limb on their own; and wages during sickness and the Clause dealing with diseases of animals make extremely strange bedfellows with another Clause giving grants for the keeping of farm accounts.
Much of Part I seems to me to be robed in complete unreality. A Government who at one time talked of expanding beef production up to the limit of technical possibilities cannot possibly expect farmers to take this Measure seriously when the Minister's outlook is one of rationalisation, the elimination of excess capacity, and so on.
Before making a few points of detail, I should like to make a point which has not been raised before. I refer to the desirability of having on the Commission veterinary representation and, if not actual representation on the Committees, close consultation with the veterinary profession by the Committees.
If at this stage I may comment on the intervention of my noble Friend the Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Viscount Lambton), I say no more than this to the Minister. It is, I believe, fair at least to say that anxiety has been caused by what has been alleged—I go no further than that—about the methods by which a very difficult situation was tackled in Northumberland.
The Minister is on record as saying on 18th January:
I am making inquiries into this. As soon as my inquiries are completed, I will certainly make a full statement."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 18th January, 1967; Vol. 739, c. 618]
May I assume that that statement will be made in the House?

Mr. Peart: I can give the assurance that the statement will be made available

to hon. Members. I am honour bound to communicate with the noble Lord the Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Viscount Lambton). I thought that I would also inform the right hon. Member for Grantham (Mr. Godber), who quite rightly raised the matter with me. It is, however, right and proper that the statement should be available also to hon. Members. It is lengthy.

Mr. Stodart: When the Minister says that the statement will be made available, does he mean that he will make a statement in the House?

Mr. Peart: The hon. Member must know that I said during the debate to the noble Lord that I would be writing to him. I thought that it would be wise and proper to make the statement available to a wider audience. I will certainly examine how best I can make it available to hon. Members.

Mr. Stodart: I am obliged to the Minister for what he has said. I take the point about his communicating with my right hon. Friend and my noble Friend, but I ask him to consider the possibility that a précis of the statement could be made available in the House.

Mr. Peart: The sort of thing that I was thinking about was placing it in the Library, where hon. Members can have it.

Mr. Stodart: I do not wish to be a bore about this, but it would be desirable that an abridged statement of some kind should be made in the House.
Another point which, strangely enough, has had the most scant reference during the whole of the stages of the Bill is the demise of P.I.D.A. Clause 22 wrote that demise and the Minister's reference to it occupied only 17 lines of the OFFICIAL REPORT. If I did not know the right hon. Gentleman better, I would be tempted to say that such glaring inadequacy as that looks as if it was a calculated insult. I hope that when the Secretary of State for Scotland replies to this debate, he will take the belated opportunity of paying tribute to the splendid work which has been done and of assuring the House that that work will continue.
If the Minister suggests that we could have raised this issue, he will recollect that it was raised but that he was anxious


to get his Clause at high speed and, alas, we were not afforded the opportunity of returning to the matter on Report. I hope, however, that the Secretary of State for Scotland will pay tribute to P.I.D.A. and will tell us that things like the recording schemes, the statistical and economic data and the expert interpretation of these and the carcase classification scheme, all of which were designed to secure better carcase quality and lower costs—and, indeed, have done this—will be continued with unabated vigour by the Commission.
I turn now to the question of the beef cow subsidy and the hill sheep subsidy. The intention behind the new beef cow subsidy is excellent, but it is just as irresolute in conception as practically everything that the Minister does. At the equivalent of 52s. per acre, which is what the equivalent is, it is much too small to wean people out of growing barley into producing beef. Of that there can be no shadow of doubt.
As to the hill sheep subsidy, apart from extending the period in which the grant can be paid, the system of dealing with the subsidy remains entirely as it is. Therefore, the handling of the hill sheep subsidy recent months bodes extremely ill for the future. The Minister said—I was surprised to hear it—that changes could take place quickly in this subsidy. Warnings about the situation were given first on 6th July last. There was a further debate in October followed by repeated Questions, all directed to the Secretary of State for Scotland. There was not a vestige of action until 23rd November. There were only pleadings by the then Minister of State for Scotland about late springs, early winters, cold nights and dark mornings and that a 15s. advance would be no answer.
Does that mean that there is only a further 3s. or 4s. to come this February? That is what it could mean. As my right hon. Friends made quite clear, we on these benches think that it should be an additional payment and not an advance one. What has happened makes me quite convinced that it would be better to have a two-tier system in which one had a fixed rate, followed by a second payment in particularly bad years.
The efficiency of British farmers is acknowledged, and tribute is paid to it on all sides. But even the most efficient

farmers in the world cannot carry the overhead expenditure of the most irresolute Minister of Agriculture in our time.

Mr. Peart: I thought that hon. Members opposite were accusing me of being too autocratic and resolute. It is nice to hear a change of opinion.

Mr. Stodart: I do not think that that description was ever directed personally at the right hon. Gentleman.
Not only have we irresolution from the right hon. Gentleman but from the Secretary of State for Scotland, who in this matter, much to my surprise, has been guilty of inactivity, indolence and of one of the seven deadly sins, namely, sloth.
Returning to the task which is facing the Meat and Livestock Commission, the livestock situation is very grave. When I heard what I thought was a slightly confused speech from the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan), in which he said that farmers were increasing their output in the face of diminishing profits, I recalled that someone once spoke about hungry sheep looking up and not being fed at all. When one looks at the recent survey by the National Farmers' Union of Scotland, which shows that more people are going out of fattening cattle than are taking it up, it becomes apparent that the increase in beef breeding is only because people are in it already and are increasing numbers to try to counter falling profits per head. The survey describes the sheep industry as "literally disastrous", and those who are decreasing and disbanding their flocks are double the number expanding.
The hon. Member for Berwick and East Lothian (Mr. Mackintosh) talked about farmers having been cheered by the promise of expansion. The hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland said that his farmers were grateful and that productivity was going up. The hon. Gentleman cannot have seen the figures which indicate that in eight out of ten commodities productivity is down. If his glowing account were true, it is very strange that in the latest edition of the National Farmers' Union of Scotland's publication Farming Leader, these words appear:
The aim of expanding beef output to the limit of the technical possibilities is simply


unattainable at present prices. Out sheep industry has been allowed to drift and decline disastrously and this, together with the plight of the beef sector, has knocked the heart out of those who farm our hill areas. At no time in post-war history has the industry—and the country—been faced with such a situation.
So much for increased productivity on the hills.
To me, the most worrying feature of the Bill is the way in which so much that is fundamental to its success flies right in the face of other Government policy. My right hon. Friend has referred to that. At one stage in his speech the Minister said that the grants would be of great benefit. All the grants which we have legislated for do just this: they fly in the face of other Government policy, for the basic reason that the profits which farmers made this year and last year are such that there is nothing left to plough back.
The banks are lending £500 million to the industry. Another £120 million has come from the merchants. If the figure of 450,000 holdings is correct, it means that the average indebtedness of every farmer in the country, three-quarters of whom run small farms, is £1,400. To my mind, that is a terrible millstone for a small farmer to have hanging round his neck. The income available after tax is not enough to meet the demand for capital.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: rose—

Mr. Stodart: I am just coming to the end of my speech. The hon. Gentleman will have his chance afterwards.
The lesson which the Government must learn is that, if the Bill is to mean anything, the real basis for growth lies in an inward flow of cash from profits after taxation has been met. If that does not take place, all our efforts on the Bill will have been so much wasted time.

7.37 p.m.

The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. William Ross): There were times when I wondered whether we were having a debate after the Price Review. Some of the comments which we have heard today dealt with matters which could be said to be relevant to the Price Review. I have been in the House for 21 years, and I have always been convinced that I could make long speeches—and I had plenty of experience in opposition—

but I like to think that I kept myself in order all the time. Indeed, part of the art is in knowing when one can be out of order.
Today, we heard the best one of all. I never warned a Minister that I was going to speak about something which would be out of order and ask for his permission. I think that the next time the right hon. Member for Grantham (Mr. Godber) wishes to raise such a matter during a debate, he should write to Mr. Speaker about it.
If there is anything, which to my mind, looks completely out of order, it is a broad discussion of the Common Market when we are dealing with and legislating for defects which are apparent in the industry at present and which will continue, Common Market or no Common Market, unless we take steps to put them right.

Mr. Godber: Having completely misrepresented what I said, perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will allow me to correct him. I presume that he knows that I was not writing asking the Minister's permission to do anything. I was writing to advise him that I should be making a point in relation to the Common Market and doing him the courtesy of letting him know, as I should be speaking after him. That is rather different from the way in which the right hon. Gentleman has put it.

Mr. Ross: It is not very easy at all times to anticipate what someone is going to say. Part of the art of winding up a debate is to anticipate what the last speaker will say and demolish his argument beforehand. But it is very difficult for a person opening a debate, who is tied by the rules of order to what is in the Bill, to speak about something else.
I think that it was one of the worst speeches that I have ever heard the right hon. Gentleman make. He fastened on a word in a speech which my right hon. Friend made somewhere in Wales. I think that it was about the beef cow subsidy. He had a long story about that, and then the right hon. Gentleman did even worse. He attacked my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales, not on the basis of what he wrote, but on the basis of a headline which a journalist put on my right hon. Friend's words. He really was scraping the barrel, but then


he has been scraping the barrel ever since we started this debate, which was quite a long time ago. He said that it was a hotch potch, it was a small miscellany, it was irrelevant, and so on, and he used the same words today.
One hon. Gentleman opposite said that the trouble with this Bill compared with the 1957 Act, or with the 1947 Act, was that it had no theme. He never mentioned the point about the security of the tenant farmer under the 1957 Act. The theme of this Bill is the strengthening of certain parts of the farming industry which we know to be weak, and whose preservation we know is worth while.
Hon. Gentlemen opposite have paid lip-service to the small farmer, and we heard a repetition of the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Cardigan (Mr. Elystan Morgan) about the small farmer in Wales. We have to face the tact that what we have to do for the small farmer is to make his holding more viable, to help him to viability while changes are taking place in the farm structure. TO help him while these changes are taking place we have the miscellaneous part of the Bill at which the hon. Member for Windsor (Sir C. Mott-Radclyffe) and others sneered and talked about bookkeeping records, and so on. [Interruption.] I have full notes of what the hon. Gentleman said, and I suggest that these things—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. So far every speech in this debate has been uninterrupted.

Sir C. Mott-Radclyffe: I never mentioned bookkeeping.

Mr. Ross: I shall come to the hon. Gentleman's speech in due course.
The theme of the Bill is improving the meat and livestock industry, and modernising every section of the industry, in a way which has been shouted for, not for 10 years, but for about 30. Whatever happens about the Common Market and about Europe, the provisions of the Bill will still be important for the industry.
The hon. Member for Carmarthen (Mr. Gwynfor Evans) asked about the rural development boards. He, too, spoke feelingly about the industry in Wales, and there was a suggestion that we did not

want civil servants, be they Welsh civil servants or English ones, on these boards. The assurance has been given that what we want on these boards are people who are sympathetic to the problems of the industry. These boards are being set up in the areas where there are special problems because we think that this is the way to tackle them. These boards will need the powers which we are giving them, and this is the answer to many of the hon. Gentlemen opposite. My hon. Friend was right when he said that hon. Gentlemen opposite want the money, but they do not want the boards to be given these powers.
I remember the debates that we had about the Highland Development Act, and the powers which we took in that Measure. There has been no misuse of those powers. The people of that area felt that the powers were essential because of the nature of the problems, and the same thing will be true of the rural development boards. I assure hon. Gentlemen opposite that this is a useful Measure.
Some people have said that the Bill does not go far enough, and others have said that it goes too far. Scotland certainly will not lack its share of the benefits. The Livestock Commission will be able to effect improvements over the whole field of livestock improvement, marketing and distribution, and here I come to a point raised by the hon. Gentleman. This is a field in which the Pig Industry Development Authority, in its more limited way, has been working with considerable success. I had intended to pay tribute to the pioneering work which it has done, and this will be continued under the new Commission. These benefits will be of advantage to consumers as well as to producers. On farm structure, although, apart from the crofting areas, the Scottish small farm problem is less than that of the rest of the United Kingdom, the amalgamation grants should make a useful contribution.
If the hon. Member for Carmarthen is troubled about what can be done, I suggest that he talks to his Liberal friend the hon. Member for Ross and Cromarty (Mr. Alasdair Mackenzie), who was a member of the Crofter Commission which had a considerable part to play in amalgamations of this kind with a view to


retaining the traditional form of land holding and land working in Scotland.
I agree with the hon. Gentleman who said that a lot will depend on the way in which the Bill is administered. I assure him that we are determined that the administration will be right, will be sympathetic, and will ensure that that type of farm is safeguarded.
There are two measures which are particularly welcome from the Scottish point of view. First, there is the continuance of the Farm Improvement Scheme under Clause 30. Despite all the gloomy prognostications made by some people about the effect of the reduction in the basic rate of grant from one-third to one-quarter, business is booming more than it has ever done, and this may be part of the answer to my hon. Friend who thought that farmers were not putting money into farming. During the past year in Scotland we have had more than 6,200 applications for grant, compared with 5,500 the year before, so obviously Scottish farmers are well pleased with the scheme.
The second measure of importance is the proposed Hill Land Improvement Scheme under Clause 40. I am the first to agree that we have our problems on hill land. It may be that they are not just the problems of a season. I do not pretend that the Bill sets out to solve all problems in agriculture. We do not as yet legislate miracles, but we may find this scheme of considerable use in relation to the long-term problems of the hill land.
We intend to provide 50 per cent. grants for reclamation, reseeding and regeneration of grazing, fencing, and so on, and when it is realised that three-quarters of Scottish agricultural land consists of rough grazing, I am sure that there will be great scope for Scottish farmers to make use of these grants. Although we are strongly individualistic, and probably more so on the fringes of the United Kingdom than anywhere else, it is in these areas that what we are suggesting in relation to expediting moves towards co-operation will be most useful, and I am glad that the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan) paid attention to this.
The hon. Gentleman talked about what we should have done about the

advance payment. There has never been any doubt about what it was. We were asked for an advance payment, and we made it at the rate of 15s. per ewe. As the hon. Gentleman knows, the question whether there should be any change in the flat rate basic payment of 19s. per ewe is a matter for the forthcoming Annual Review. I think it was my hon. Friend who asked about the review which we are having between the Department and the Scottish N.F.U. This is proceeding, and the findings will be borne in mind when we come to make the settlement at the Annual Review.
I have to congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Berwick and East Lothian (Mr. Mackintosh). He got the whole subsidy structure into his speech, even though it is not in the Bill. He referred to long-term policy in relation to everything connected with agriculture. That is not in the Bill. He even got a bedside book into the Bill. I was waiting for a reference to Berwick's defeat of Glasgow Rangers. I do not say that he did not talk sense, but if he had been relevant I could have answered in full everything he asked. He knows the importance of getting things on the record.
The hon. Member for Windsor seemed to think that the Government did not know what they wanted. I have already explained that the purpose of the Bill is to strengthen the meat and livestock position from the point of view of marketing. It is to strengthen the structure of the organisation and to deal with small farmers in that respect. In another connection it deals with the possibility of amalgamation and co-operation, and with the special problems of the viability of rural development. We want viable holdings. Anyone who is concerned with what has been happening in agriculture and who wants to retain productive units ought to appreciate that we must do something.
More than one person has said that we should allow economic forces to deal with the position. In Scotland this would mean that the big man drives the other man out, without any consideration of the consequential social problems. We want progress to be properly planned and controlled, and to take place without hardship. Hon. Members kept dragging in not what is in this Bill but what is


in other Bills. They made gloomy forecasts about death duties, the Capital Gains Tax and so on. The Joint Parliamentary Secretary was right; when death duties were introduced it was predicted that they would lead to fragmentation and that large estates would disappear from the whole countryside. It did not happen. In fact, units are becoming larger and larger. I do not accept the gloomy forecasts of the hon. Member for Windsor.

Sir C. Mott-Radclyffe: I was not talking about large estates. The Bill does not deal with large estates. I said that under existing death duties anybody could sell any part of a holding without the consent of the Minister. This does nit apply to any amalgamated holding under the Bill.

Mr. Ross: If, in order to meet liabilities, part of an amalgamated holding had to be sold off, I am sure that no Minister would refuse. I was pointing out, as analogous to the hon. Member's argument, that hon. Members were wrong in their argument about death duties, and I suggest that the hon. Member is wrong in what he said tonight.
The hon. Member for Ross and Cromarty asked for adequate explanation. I can assure him that the Scottish Office will take every opportunity properly and lucidly to explain those parts of the Bill which are relevant. I am glad that he made the point about progress made, without hardship, in respect of amalgamations in the Highlands, and recognised the value of what we are suggesting for the hill lands. I am sorry that I cannot reply to him on the Common Market point. I do not know whether the hon. Member who interrupted him appreciated how he feels about the Common Market. I have a fair idea.
I accept on behalf of my right hon. Friend the personal thanks of the hon. Member for Norfolk, South-West (Mr. Hawkins) about the change being made concerning the lease of tractors and harvesters. We are a very receptive and responsive Government. If there is anything that the Bill has proved, it is the

importance of agriculture to the House and the stamina of those interested in agriculture, together with the responsiveness of the agriculture Ministers.
The hon. Member said that the Bill could lay the foundations of worth-while things. He was right. This was said by other hon. Members. My hon. Friend the Member for Cardigan said that the Bill made substantial changes and provided possible starting points from which we might develop more sophisticated machinery in respect of the Meat and Livestock Commission and the rural development boards. He suggested that the substantial nature of the powers were related to the problems involved.
Some hon. Members talked rather scathingly about what the Bill would do for the farmer. I thought that some hon. Members might have been tempted to vote against the Bill, so I asked my officials to work out how much it was worth to agriculture. Somebody suggested that farmers would say, "What is in the Bill for me?". As far as I can calculate there is about £45 million a year in it. That is what is in this mean, common, little hotchpotch of irrelevance. There is the calf subsidy, the beef cow subsidy, the farm structure improvement grant, worth £15 million to £17 million a year after five years. The aggregate for farm improvement has now been raised by £80 million. Another £1 million a year is being spent on hill land improvement. Then there are investment incentives and grants to co-operatives in respect of which we shall spend about £¼ million after four years. On grants in respect of farm business records we shall spend about £2½ million a year. All this expenditure is related to problems that have arisen year after year but have never been adequately dealt with.
We are right to be pleased with what we have done in the Bill. We have made a start, and I hope that the House will proceed to give the Bill a Third Reading.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed.

Orders of the Day — WEST INDIES BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. William Ross): I have it in Command from the Queen to acquaint the House that Her Majesty, having been informed of the purport of the Bill, has consented to place Her prerogative and interest, so far as they are affected by the Bill, at the disposal of Parliament for the purposes of the Bill.

7.56 p.m.

The Minister of State, Commonwealth Affairs (Mrs. Judith Hart): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
The Bill concerns the people of Antigua, St. Kitts, Dominica, St. Lucia, St. Vincent and Grenada. At Conferences last spring their representatives agreed with us conclusions about their future. The Reports of the Conferences have been published as White Papers—Cmnd, 2963, 3021 and 3031. After many days—sometimes even nights—of deliberation the Conferences decided that the present colonial relationship with Britain should cease, and should he replaced by a new pattern of association with us. This would be free and voluntary; it could be ended by either country at any time, and under it the associated State would be fully self-governing in all its internal affairs. The Bill will give effect to those conclusions.
The House will wish to know the background which led to the Conferences. They were able to take as a basis proposals which had been worked out by my right hon. Friend the present Minister of Housing and Local Government while he was Secretary of State for the Colonies. An outline of them had been discussed on his behalf with Ministers in each territory by Sir Stephen Luke during a tour of the islands in November, 1965. A Memorandum containing the proposals and a suggestion that they should be discussed at Conferences in London were sent to the administrators in December and published in Cmnd. 2865.
It was a little later that my noble Friend the Lord Privy Seal, as Secretary of State, took the Chair at the first of these successful Conferences—the one with Antigua. At subsequent Conferences the chair was taken by my right

hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, as Secretary of State, and he presented the Bill to the House as the last act in Parliament of the last Secretary of State for the Colonies.
This is not, of course, an independence Bill on familiar lines. The House will know—certainly hon. Gentlemen opposite will—that we hoped at one time to achieve an independent Federation in the Caribbean. This is not the moment to go into all the reasons why it did not happen, but we have to face the fact that the will to federate was not strong enough. We were disappointed, of course, and puzzled. The six territories are very much of a size, with populations of between 60,000 and 120,000. None of them is more than 20 miles square. They have a full share in the culture of the Caribbean and long experience of democratic government. Federation would have seemed an additional way of achieving independence, but since this was not possible, we had to look for some other way forward, while leaving the way open for federation in the future.
These territories are sadly poor, especially when seen against the background of North American opulence, and their connection with us is their lifeline. For trade, aid and their standing internationally, they depend upon us. Independent nationhood for each was not realistic. Neither they nor we thought so, but, one by one, the separate Governments came to us with proposals for more liberal Constitutions. We knew that they really wanted their freedom, but did not want to give them an illusion of freedom, a mere facade. For some time, we could not see a way forward. This, of course, was part of a wider problem. We had then, and still have, 15 other territories of the same size or smaller, most of them islands.
There are four smaller West Indian territories, five, including the Bahamas, Bermuda and Gibraltar, in the Atlantic, two in the Indian Ocean and four in the Pacific. Every one of these territories is a special case. In the Pacific archipelago, for instance—the Gilbert and Ellice Islands and the British Solomon Islands Protectorate—we still have full responsibility and a long way to go to develop their economies and social services, to train local leaders and create democratic institutions.
Bermuda and the Bahamas are a contrast; they are prosperous, self-reliant, very largely self-governing. They have their problems and they are often responsive to our advice, but there has been nothing colonial in our relationship with them for many years past. In the Turks and Caicos Islands, at the end of the Bahamas chain, some 6,000 people live. Once prosperous, these isolated islands are now wretchedly poor and they are heavily dependent upon a British subsidy. So the list goes on. Hardly any generalisations hold good over the whole field except that they all need either help, or a protector, or both, and they all dread the thought that we might leave them on their own too soon.
So we have had to carve out a new path. In 1965, after touring the Caribbean islands, my right hon. Friend the Minister of Housing and Local Government called a very unusual conference in Oxford. He invited colonial Governors, business men, scholars, journalists and a number of slightly surprised officials from Whitehall Departments; and he threw this smaller territories problem at them. The result was a ferment of ideas, and soon afterwards the germ of the proposals we are considering tonight emerged, partly worked out on the basis of first principles, and partly by studying experience elsewhere.
Several of the ex-colonial Powers have similar dependencies, often isolated, often poor, and difficult to accommodate in a world of young nationalism and anti-colonial enthusiasm. Each of the Powers is tackling the problems in its own way. The New Zealanders, in particular, have been pace-makers. Between 1963 and 1965 they negotiated an association with the Cook Islands which gives the 20,000 islanders a new combination of freedom and outside support. The special feature of this association is that the islanders have a standing option of independence. I want to acknowledge the use which we Dave made of the Cook Islands model, in this and other respects, in working out the proposals contained in the Bill.
I do not suggest that these proposals are a prototype and that all we have to do now is to work out solutions for other territories on the same lines. Similar as these Caribbean islands are, separate and detailed Constitutions have had to be

tailor-made for them. I hope that some of their provisions will be useful as models elsewhere, but the hard truth is that there are no stock answers to any of these problems. On the other hand, we have worked out some general principles and I think it is worth stating them. They provide the background to this Bill.
First, we believe that the people in each territory are entitled to the fullest political liberty, the fullest voice in their own affairs, that their circumstances allow. Second, we see it as our duty to widen their opportunities whenever we can and make real liberty possible for them. For one or two, the scope will always be very narrow; we cannot change geography. But for most of them there is a great deal which we can do to help. Third, we owe them help and protection while they need it: it would be totally wrong to abandon them before they can stand on their own.
Twenty years ago the late Arthur Creech-Jones said that the purpose of our policy was
… to guide the colonial territories to responsible self-government within the Commonwealth in conditions that assured the people concerned both a fair standard of living and freedom from oppression from any quarter.
In more recent years, we have come to read "independence" for "self-government" and perhaps be less exacting about such things as economic viability and the capacity for self-defence. But now we are having to think again: is this, after all, a choice that we should try to make? Leaving aside such territories as Hong Kong and Gibraltar, where international factors must be paramount, I believe we should set ourselves now to prepare the people of each territory to choose for themselves, when the time comes, between independence on the one hand and, on the other, some such relationship as we are discussing here; a relationship that will set them free as communities and individuals but assure them of continued help and protection. But the choice will be theirs.
In a recent Parliamentary Answer, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said:
We are ready to work out suitable arrangements to grant independence to those dependent territories overseas which want it and can sustain it. For the others we are willing to work out with the representatives of their


peoples arrangements that would enable them, if they so wish, to continue in some form of association with us."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 15th December, 1966: Vol. 738, c. 151.]
This is the concept which emerges in the Bill.
What is the nature of the Associated Status to be granted to the territories covered in it? Many hon. Members will doubtless be familiar by now with the Conference Reports. I should like to draw attention to certain features of the proposals which are of special significance. Where it is necessary—this will not be often—to refer to passages in the Reports it will, I hope, be convenient if I refer throughout to the Report on the Conference with St. Kitts. Cmnd. 3031.
The proposed new association will be free and voluntary. It will be terminable at any time. Under it the territory will be fully self-governing in all its "internal affairs". That is in paragraph 10. The ability of the territory to terminate the association is intended as a guarantee of its voluntary nature. But while the association continues, neither side will be able to amend its terms without the agreement of the other.
A decision to terminate the association, once implemented, will be irrevocable. It seems prudent, therefore, to introduce some safeguards against legislative action to terminate the association being taken in a territory without due deliberation and the positive backing of public opinion. The procedures set out in paragraph 23 of the Report provide this safeguard.
They involve an interval of 90 days between introduction of legislation for this purpose and any consideration of it; they require the approval of two-thirds of the elected members of the legislature; and they require the further approval of two-thirds of the persons voting in a referendum before the legislation is submitted for assent. No referendum would be required if it was proposed to terminate association in favour of association with some other Commonwealth country in the Caribbean.
I have already mentioned that the way is left open for federation. Many of those at the Conferences expressed the feeling that it should be no more difficult for the territories to federate as associated States

than it is today. This is of the greatest importance. It will still be possible for United Kingdom legislation to be made at the request and with the consent of an associated State. It would be open to any associated States which wished to federate to signify their request and consent that the necessary provision should be made. This they could do by simple resolution of the legislatures, and without recourse to a referendum. The new relationship with Britain will, therefore, create no new procedural difficulties which might stand in the way of federation.
It is not only associated States, however, which would be able to terminate the association; Britain also could do so. Assurances were given that Britain would not do so unilaterally without giving six months' notice of her intention. We gave this further assurance: that we would be prepared to hold a conference at which the political and economical implications of the termination could be discussed; and would seek the specific approval of Parliament for the termination of the association.
Apart from its voluntary nature, the proposed association would owe its character mainly to the division of responsibilities and powers between the United Kingdom and the associated States. Each associated State will have full control of its internal affairs and the power to amend its Constitution. We will be responsible for defence and external affairs, and we will retain the legislative and executive authority necessary for us to discharge that responsibility.
The Constitution agreed for each of the Associated States was set out in an annex to the Conference Report. Each contains the provisions which are normal in a modern independence Constitution, subject to the requirements of our responsibility for defence and external affairs, and also the preservation of a common citizenship. Each Constitution contains provision for the protection of fundamental rights and procedures; for the maintenance of democratic institutions; and for its amendment or replacement by the legislature in accordance with procedures laid down for this purpose. The Conferences all envisaged the establishment of a single Supreme Court for the Associated States, consisting of a High Court and a Court of Appeal; and


agreement has since been reached on the provision to be made for this purpose.
The arrangements which should govern the exercise by the United Kingdom and the Associated States of their respective responsibilities and powers were the matter of detailed agreement at the Conferences. They will be found in paragraphs 11–22 of the Report and in Annexes "C" and "D". Agreement was reached that future legislation of the United Kingdom should not extend to an Associated State as part of its law unless made at the request and with the consent of the Associated State. There is, however, one important exception. It was necessary to meet the eventuality that proper discharge of the responsibilities of Her Majesty's Government might require the enactment of legislation which the Associated State was unwilling or unable to undertake itself, and unwilling to request Her Majesty's Government to undertake This is a power of last resort—in the words of the Report:
… necessary because it would not be reasonable to expect the United Kingdom to bear a responsibility without having the means of discharging it whatever course events might take, but unlikely to be invoked except as a last resort in circumstances that in practice seem unlikely to arise.
At each of the Conferences "Heads of Agreement on Defence and External Affairs" were worked out which laid down the obligations of the British and State Governments in these respects. They are in Annex "C" of the Report.
The territorial Governments undertook to provide us and our allies with defence facilities, and not to allow other Governments these facilities without our consent. Other Clauses cover the status of visiting forces and the use of our troops in aid of the civil powers. On the external affairs side, Her Majesty's Government undertook to exercise their powers in consultation with the State Governments. Those Governments undertook to take all steps—including, where necessary, steps to secure the passage of legislation—required by us to secure the fulfilment of our Commonwealth or international obligations or in the interest of good relations.
There is also provision for us to legislate on these matters on behalf of the State with its advice and consent. We have given an undertaking to those who

wanted it that if, after full consultation, there is failure to reach agreement concerning the enactment of legislation, before exercising our own powers to invite Parliament to legislate for the States, we will give a State Government as much notice as possible and, so far as we can, give it the opportunity to consider whether in all the circumstances it would wish to take the necessary steps to terminate the association.
We also agreed at the Conference the texts of draft dispatches defining the authority the State Governments will have in the external relations field. We indicated our readiness to extend this delegation for particular purposes on request. It was agreed that in making use of their relegated powers the States would keep us informed throughout and that if we informed them that their actions or proposals conflicted with our international commitments, responsibilities or policies they would, after consultation, accept and abide by the decision of Her Majesty's Government.
I should mention the assurances which were given during the Conference on arrangements for development and budgetary aid in the future. So far as development assistance is concerned, we confirmed that we would carry out in full the undertakings already given to the territories concerned in connection with the Overseas Development and Services Act, 1965. We also confirmed that associated States would, if the need arose, continue to be eligible for budgetary aid after the new constitutional arrangements had come into force.

Mr. Donald Chapman: Before my hon. Friend leaves the question of financial aid, would she say something about capital development in the islands and the possibility of carrying out the recommendations of the Tripartite Report? Surely, when we have given independence on previous occasions, we have normally given some sort of birthday present which launches a territory on its way. Will a similar announcement be made?

Mrs. Hart: I am sorry to tell my hon. Friend that one will not be made tonight. However, he will be aware that my right hon. Friend the Minister for Overseas Development, who is personally


concerned with this matter, will be visiting the islands for the purpose of helping them to celebrate the days when they come into associated status; and perhaps he will have something to say on this point.
I will explain briefly the content of the Bill. Clause 1 provides for the assumption of associated status, and read with Clause 19(2) enables different days to be appointed for different territories.
Clause 2 sets out the limits of continuing responsibility of Her Majesty's Government. Clause 3 lays down the conditions to be met before an Act of Parliament passed after association will extend to an associated State. Clause 4 sets out the executive authority of the Government of an associated State. Clause 5 enables new constitutions to be granted and Clause 6 enables courts to be established. Clause 7 enables Orders in Council to he made at the request and with the consent of an associated State; but this will not be needed in Orders concerned with defence or external affairs. Clause 8 contains normal provisions enabling compensation schemes to be made. Clause 9 enables provision to be made for combining associated States or for dividing or altering the boundaries of a State.
Clause 10 provides two ways of terminating the status of association. One is by the legislature in accordance with Schedule 2. I am afraid that minor changes with a purely technical aspect are desirable in paragraph 3 of this Schedule, and notice of the necessary amendment will be given tomorrow. Clause 11 provides for the effect of termination of the association. It would be complete independence. Clause 12 read with Schedule 3, removes from the Governors of associated States functions under the British Nationality Acts which are appropriate only to a Colonial Governor.
Clauses 13, 14 and 15 contain consequential and supplementary provisions. Clause 16 will enable grants to continue to be made to the Governments of associated States. Clause 17 provides that all Orders in Council terminating the association will require approval in draft by a resolution of each House. An Order under Clause 13 or Clause 14 will be subject to annulment in pursuance of a

Resolution of either House. Clauses 18, 19 and 20 are interpretative and procedural. Clause 20 provides a short title.
In conclusion, I return to what I said at the beginning; that the Bill was needed only to give effect to agreed conclusions. The territorial delegations at the Conferences included members of all the parties represented in the legislatures. Complete agreement was reached in every case, save on certain matters that did not affect the substance of the proposals and on which the opposition parties from three territories entered reservations. The proposals have since been endorsed by Resolution of the legislatures of each of the territories and they are now looking to this Parliament to provide the legislative authority for their assumption of their new status. If this authority is provided—which I am sure will be the case—St. Kitts and Antigua will proceed to associated Statehood on 27th February, Dominica and St. Lucia on 1st March and Grenada on the 3rd March; which leaves the question of St. Vincent.
St. Vincent is included in the Bill and it is our hope that St. Vincent can also proceed to associated Statehood as soon as the present, unfortunate uncertainties about the electoral position can be resolved. These arise, as I think the House will know, from the closeness of the General Election results in which one party won five seats and another won four, and four outstanding election petitions are involved at the same time. I am discussing the problem with representatives of the Government and Opposition parties of St. Vincent. I should tell the House that there has been a very wide measure of agreement reached by now. I am hopeful that it will be possible during the course of tomorrow to arrive at an agreed solution which will meet the agreement of both sides and the approval of the British Government.
The position as to the actual date for St. Vincent I cannot give to the House at this moment.

Mr. John Hall: I am interested in the question of St. Vincent. Will the hon. Lady announce to the House if an agreement has been reached and then the date on which it will receive independence?

Mrs. Hart: Yes, as soon as possible after the discussions I am having at the moment are concluded and any ends have been tied up, I shall tell the House what has been decided. Then the House will be able to see the conclusions which, I hope, will have been reached by then. At that point it will be possible to set a date at which St. Vincent may also enter into associated status.
This Bill represents a unique development in the relationship between Britain and some of her former Colonial Territories. The problem which lies ahead of us in deciding the future of some of the scattered territories—many sparse in natural resources, many needing so much help by way of development and education in order to give them real hope for the future—presents us with problems so great that the normal traditional concepts which apply to considerations of colonialism and anti-colonialism seem to be of comparatively less relevance. What is necessary is to work out a new way, and this is what the Bill tries to do, in which they can move towards the degree of freedom they ask for and want and at the same time continue to give them the degree of protection for which they also ask.
It is an interesting venture, an interesting period into which we now move when we shall see how the new concept of associated States works out. Its success will depend a great deal on good will and co-operation. For our part we can certainly give to the territories involved our wholehearted assurance that there will be an abundance of both.

8.23 p.m.

Mr. Richard Wood: We have listened with interest to what the hon. Lady told us. Like her, before the present Government took office, and since then, we have followed closely the various initiatives and developments which have taken place in the Caribbean since the dissolution of the West Indies Federation: first, the examination of the possibilities of a new Federation which she mentioned this evening and, more recently, the new proposals to the West Indian Six about which this Bill is concerned. We seem to be dealing with a number of "Sixes" in different parts of the world. Judging by the calm atmosphere in this Chamber tonight, it seems

that this Six evokes less passion than does another Six.
We should all like to congratulate the Minister on the progress made by a rapid succession of the hon. Lady's right hon. Friend's predecessors, which itself must have been a little bewildering for the Six. Even though this Bill is a little behind the timetable announced last August, I can assure the hon. Lady that my hon. Friends and I will certainly give our support to the new arrangements for which the Bill provides. I do not think any of us expect—I should add that I do not think we hope—that they represent the final answer, but we certainly believe that the arrangements which the hon. Lady has described can be the basis of a continuing and fruitful partnership between the territories and Great Britain. It is for the territories themselves to come by agreement, if they wish, into closer association between themselves and other Commonwealth States in the Caribbean.
We are all aware of the difficulties, but I cherish the hope that some form of closer association with one another before long will seem both sensible and practical to the territories concerned. Even after the important change which will take place in the status of the territories, as the hon. Lady mentioned, in five of the six within a few weeks, the responsibility of this country for their well-being will continue. I was very much in sympathy with the question asked by the hon. Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Mr. Chapman)—how far shall we be able to fulfil those responsibilities? I hope that the hon. Lady will give us the assurance, more than she did when she was speaking, that her right hon. Friend, when he returns from the West Indies, will undertake to make a definite statement about what he has heard and seen and decided, because that will be of great interest to us all.
The democratic system which Great Britain has exported, or tried to export, to a great many parts of the world is, as we in this country have discovered from time to time, a very fragile instrument. The territories which we are now discussing have had considerable experience of the working of the democratic system. When we cast our own minds back to the growing pains of democracy


in Great Britain, I fancy we all want to congratulate those in the islands who have been responsible for democracy in action. But democracy, which more than any other system of government can bring stability, is also able all too easily to provide the framework for tension and instability. Under the new status of association, I hope and trust that those responsible in the islands will always be watchful and continuously on guard against the abuses to which democracy has been subjected on countless occasions.
Having welcomed the new status for the islands, I wish to ask certain questions and I should be grateful if the hon. Lady could give the answers to them in some detail if possible before the end of the debate. The hon. Lady spoke, first, about the assurances that we had given, at the various conferences which have taken place, about the procedure if the termination of the status of association becomes necessary in any case. Paragraph 23 of the Report of the Windward Islands Constitutional Conference states:
the Secretary of State gave an undertaking that Britain would not terminate the association unilaterally without giving six months' notice of intention to do so. Britain would also be prepared to hold a conference with the territory concerned …
The paragraph goes on to say that the specific approval of the British Parliament would be sought.
That is almost exactly copied in the St. Kitts Report, but there is no mention of this procedure in the Report of the Antigua constitutional conference, presumably because this was the one which was held first and the matter was not brought up. I believe that there is no mention of it in Clause 10 or, as to this precise matter, in Schedule 2.
If I am right in thinking that there is no mention of it, I cannot think that this situation is very satisfactory, because in five of the six territories—the Windward Islands and the St. Kitts group—we are committed to these three things—the six months' delay, the conference and a positive vote in the House of Commons. I cannot believe that there was any sinister intention in the fact that comparable offers were not made at the Antigua conference. I wonder—I

should be grateful for the answer—if there is any objection whatsoever to the confirmation of these arrangements applying to all the six territories by writing them specifically into the Bill.
My second difficulty relates to Clause 14. This seems to suggest, but it is pretty complicated reading, that, if the association comes to an end, the British Government will retain the power to preserve by Order in Council existing British laws in territories which have become completely independent. I appreciate that in certain circumstances this might be valuable and, indeed, necessary, but dotted about the Bill in various places I find such words as
at the request and with the consent of the associated State.
My question is whether there is not a strong case, in order to remove any doubt about Clause 14, for the insertion of a similar phrase somewhere in the Clause.
My third point concerns the possibility of this country interfering with the Constitution. In paragraph 18 of the Report of the Windward Islands Constitutional Conference it was concluded as follows:
It would not be possible, by means of an Act of Parliament or Order in Council having effect by virtue of the exception"—
that is the opinion of Parliament, and so on, that defence and external relations were involved—
to amend, suspend or revoke the constitution of the associated State.
At the end of Clause 7 there are the words: "including"—in certain circumstances, war or other emergency—
provision derogating from the provisions of the constitution of that State relating to fundamental rights and freedoms.
This is a very complicated matter, but I should be grateful if the hon. Lady could make quite clear that what is said in paragraph 18 of the Report about our powers over the Constitution is—because it does not appear to be—the same as what is said in Clause 7(2) about the
The last question of detail—I appreciate from what the hon. Lady said at the end of her speech that she would probably prefer to answer this, not tonight, but in a few days' time when her discussions with the leaders of Saint Vincent have made further progress—concerns the difficult position in that same subject.
Island. We are all aware, as the hon. Lady said, of the electoral situation there. I assume that all of us would agree that the sooner it is resolved the better for us all.
Apart from the obvious need to clarify the whole situation in order that the date can be agreed for the attainment of associated status and the grant of a new Constitution for the island, it appears—again I put this in an interrogative form—from paragraphs 6 and 12 of Appendix III, which relates to Saint Vincent, on pages 36 and 37 of the Windward Islands Report, that four additional seats are to be given to the party in power during the life of the first legislature. Apart from any other consideration, it is obviously important to decide as soon as possible which party will have the power to obtain these have extra seats.
I had intended to make certain suggestions about the situation as it is at the moment. In view of what the hon. Lady said, it would, on the whole, be wiser to leave her to conduct the important negotiations as best she may. We have her undertaking that she will make a statement as soon as these matters are resolved, and we shall await that with great interest.
Regarding the other questions which I asked, I hope that before the debate ends we can have satisfactory answers to these various important points of detail. If we have those satisfactory answers, then my hon. Friends will fully support the proposals in the Bill.
Although the territories concerned will thereafter have the right to bring to an end their association with Britain, I hope—and I think that the hon. Lady clearly hopes—that they will not find it necessary to do so. I am convinced that it is in the interest not only of the territories themselves and of this country, but also of the whole Western world, that the connections, which we have now had for well over three centuries, should continue and should grow stronger, whatever the future may hold.

8.35 p.m.

Mr. Donald Chapman: These are usually occasions for congratulation, for felicitation, and for expressions of satisfaction, that another part of the Commonwealth is moving towards freedom and independence. In one sense, I should like very much to

join in those expressions of good will and congratulation. With other hon. Members, I made such expressions as each part of the Caribbean moved towards some form of independence. I recall with considerable affection the debates we had on the independence of Jamaica, of Trinidad, and of Barbados. The hon. Lady the Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dame Joan Vickers), the hon. Member for Surbiton (Mr. Fisher), my hon. Friend, as I would call him, and I have been here on all those occasions, and we have all expressed our satisfaction when these things have happened.
I am, therefore, in rather a difficult position tonight, because I have the gravest possible reservations about the Bill, and I shall express them frankly. We are treating the suggestions in the Bill and in the preceding White Papers with insufficient thought about some of the consequences of what we are doing. I am sure, for a start, that we do not regard the proposals in the Bill as eminently satisfactory. What we would have preferred was, first, the big West Indies Federation, if that could have been retained; and, if we could not have that—we did not have it, and we all wept tears when it broke down—we would have preferred the Eastern Caribbean Federation. This is the third alternative, and ranks No. 3 in our preference.
It is on that beginning—and it is not auspicious—that we come to examine the consequences of the proposals in the Bill. What does the Bill really mean? The hon. Lady spoke about the comparison between these islands and the Cook Islands near New Zealand. I beg the hon. Lady to appreciate the difference between that relationship and that which she is proposing in the Bill. The Cook Islands are close to New Zealand physically. They feel closely under the continued protection and active interest of New Zealand. That association has worked because New Zealand has in no sense—and I use my hon. Friend's own phrase—left them alone too soon.
What worries me—and this is the core of what I want to say—is that the effect of the Bill is to cast adrift, in a very real sense, far-off islands which are too small, and which need a lot more continuing active interest by the House of Commons, and not the shaking-off of responsibility, which may well follow


from the precise terms of the Bill. I feel very strongly about this matter, and I have the gravest reservations about the consequences of the Bill.
I know the dilemma which Her Majesty's Government were in—the dilemma which is fairly set out in Cmnd. 3021, the Report of the Windward Islands Constitutional Conference. In paragraph 9 headed,
The alternative to these proposals
the view of the Government is given about the possible alternative, which was clearly pressed at that Conference on behalf of these islands. The alternative to this associated status was to have full internal self-government, with Her Majesty's Government continuing to have responsibility for defence and so on. One great consequence of the difference between the present proposals and full internal self-government would have been the continuing responsibility of Her Majesty's Government in the final resort for internal affairs in the islands. It would have meant answerability in this House of Commons about such things as the economic development of the islands and their further progress towards real viability and real independence, which could come only when they had reached the take-off point economically and were fully settled democratically.
There is this difference between the two proposals. Personally, I think that we have chosen the wrong one and I am very worried about the consequences which may now follow. The Government said that the disadvantage of this alternative was:
The British Government were held internationally responsible for matters which they had no effective means of controlling".
That, they said, was the disadvantage of having this full internal self-government with some residue of responsibility here—that internationally we would get the blame without being able to do a great deal. I would have accepted that blame. I would have accepted the international risk in return for the continuing possibility of more active intervention to help these islands on to their feet; and that is why I think that we have made the wrong choice and why I have the gravest reservations about the Bill's contents.
I want to take this a little further and to illustrate what I said when I interrupted my hon. Friend the Minister of State. I want to consider this from the angle of economic aid. I have in my hand the Report of the Tripartite Economic Survey of the islands—which as the House knows, was undertaken, after a number of us had fought for it year after year, by the British Government, Canada and the United States. It is an economic survey of the beginnings of the development potential of the islands. It could not be called a full development survey and it does not claim to be. It tries to consider the possibility of how the islands can get towards take-off point, as the economists call it. I quote the Report to show the difficulties of the situation created by the Bill and I want to quote one or two of the emphases which the writers of the Report gave to it.
In its introduction, the Report says:
We see little possibility of a movement into sustained growth"—
that is, in the islands—
without extensive reliance on external private and public sources of capital, technical and organisational skills as well as"—
and this comes out in page after page of this document—
direction and initiative for some years.
I repeat: external direction and external initiative for some years. …
Even if such an integrated programme were arranged, the attainment of self-sustaining growth is not likely to be achieved in a period as short as five years.
What seems necessary is a well integrated, long-term programme for development which has staying power.
To begin with, much of the initiative"—
that word comes up yet again in this next paragraph—
finance and execution must come from outside. The extent of this participation can then be phased out gradually as local resources are built up.
I shall not weary the House with continual quotations on the same lines. What the document makes crystal clear is that for five years and possibly ten the need of the islands, small and with a long way to go before they reach "take-off point", is not to be cast adrift too easily but to have continuing external interest, initiative and help in bringing them towards "take-off point." I believe that that could have come; it would have


been possible to make sure that it happened if the final responsibility had stayed in the House.
What I now fear happening is the kind of thing that has been happening over such matters as getting help for the islands from international authorities. I have been told, "Well, of course, we shall try to get them together on this matter, but it is primarily their responsibility, and if they do not happen to get together as six islands and make the proper applications, there is not much chance". The next stage in the argument will be—and I shudder for my hon. Friend if she has to make it here—when the House has passed the Bill, it is no longer our responsibility, and nobody will bother to do anything about it. That is what I fear as the real consequence of the Bill.
I shall take the example just one stage further, and then I am done. As my hon. Friend knows, I have worked for a long time on the idea of getting an application made on behalf of the islands to the International Development Authority for funds to help them with roads and education. The Authority, which is a subsidiary of the World Bank, has millions of dollars for that kind of thing. Why do not the Leewards and Windwards get it? The answer is that they are too small, that they are below the level of population at which the I.D.A. will deal with an independent country.
I urged that the right way to deal with that problem was to get the islands together and put in a co-ordinated plan to meet the required population level. I was told, "We shall try to get them together, but perhaps it will fail", and of course it failed all the time.
The survey makes it clear that if Her Majesty's Government had only got on with the job of setting up a development bank for the six islands on the lines recommended in the Report by now we would have been able, through a development bank for the whole of the islands, to be making application to I.D.A. for that kind of development assistance. I cannot tell my hon. Friend the exact page on which that appears because they are not numbered. The Survey actually says:
We hope that by establishing a development bank with a development agency the islands would be enabled collectively to deal

with certain international development agencies whose rules now exclude them on grounds of size.
Whose responsibility is this now? Apparently it is no longer to be ours, and the whole of the pleas in the Report for external initiative and direction are now very likely to founder, because we shall wash our hands of the islands and say that if they do not do it themselves it will not get done. We shall say "Too bad", but that at least we gave them independence and that our conscience is clear.
My conscience will not be clear. I believe that we have rushed at this thing quite wrongly in a way that will result in the danger of the House being too detached from islands in which it will pretend to have a continuing interest, but will slide out of it by saying that they have a degree of independence.
I end with one or two questions about St. Vincent. Like the right hon. Member for Bridlington (Mr. Wood), I am very concerned about the situation there under the proposals of this Bill. As I understand it, my hon. Friend the Minister of State is apparently reaching agreement on the arrangements there following the indecisive—I put it no higher—result of the general election in the island. I hope that, when she makes the settlement, it will be patently fair particularly in view of the position in St. Vincent.
It is true that Mr. Joshua, the Chief Minister, won the election with five seats to the Opposition's four, but my hon. Friend did not mention the fact, which should be recorded here, that, in an electorate so small, what is significant is not who wins most seats but who wins most votes. There is no doubt that the present Opposition had 500 more votes than its opponents. Constituencies do not have a great meaning in a total of 60,000. I do not know what the electorate is but presumably it is about half the population. It is almost accidental that the election resulted in a strange reversal of power in the sense that Mr. Joshua's party has more seats.
Thus, the agreement, when reached by my hon. Friend, must be a fair solution for a start as between Government and Opposition, bearing this major fact about the electorate, constituencies and total votes in mind.
Secondly, I want to be assured that something will be done to provide supervision in St. Vinvent—I hope that it will be voluntarily accepted—for the next election in order to ensure that we get a result which is accepted and against which there can be no complaint. Perhaps there can be observers from here or other islands.
The real worry is corruption in St. Vincent. It has been proved before and it is time we said so. I know that the hon. Member for Surbiton (Mr. Fisher) will allow me to say that I blame him partly for some of the situation. Mrs. Joshua, the wife of the Chief Minister, was convicted by a judicial inquiry of paying non-existent people from public works funds. The payments were made from her own house and in one case the money to pay them was cashed in the island's treasury by the Chief Minister, Mr. Joshua, himself. So I do not believe that he was innocent of the whole matter. What happened? The then British Government refused to do more than deprive Mrs. Joshua of her portfolio as a Minister. There have never been proper proceedings in the courts against her to get the money back. She was not, as she should have been, turned out of the legislature.
Allegations of corruption in the sale of land followed and it is even significant now that, in the present dispute, there is an allegation that an attempt was made to bribe one of the judges with an offer, again, of land below the market price. It all adds up to a picture in St. Vincent—and there is no point in beating about the bush—of corruption. I hold Mr. Joshua chiefly responsible and I think that it was the fault of the British Government of the day that the situation was not handled better.
In the circumstances, I do not want to take sides on the election petitions, for that would be quite improper; but in the final settlement of this position it must be accepted that there shall be some arrangements to clear up all these doubts, suspicions and allegations of corruption and some attempt to provide assurance that, when elections are held, the result is not in doubt.

Mr. Nigel Fisher: We did, of course, so to speak, induce Mrs. Joshua

to resign from the Government of St. Vincent, as the hon. Gentleman has indicated. But I do not think that it would have been really appropriate had we forced her to resign from the legislature. After all, she had been properly elected by the democratic vote of her constituents and it was not for the British Government to try to deprive her of her seat. Had we done so, I can think of a great number of hon. Members opposite who would have protested violently against this as an interference with the democratic rights of the people of St. Vincent.

Mr. Chapman: I accept what the hon. Gentleman has said, but there are two views on how to handle this matter. He may have felt that he went as far as he could in the circumstances. My own view is that he did not. He will accept that I am entitled to a different view.
This is not the end of the matter. Today there must be some way of clearing up other suspicions. There is now this trouble about the accounts of the new deep-water wharf, and I understand that the Canadian Government, to some extent, are not entirely happy about the final fate of some of the money that they have put into this project. I beg for a solution which looks fair, and ends in a real clean-up and rebirth of confidence in the island so that this chapter can be finally closed, and we can all feel a little happier from this time onwards.
I apologise if I have spoken at some length. I should like to reassure my hon. Friends who know of my personal devotion to this island and the West Indies as a whole. In taking what I think is a rather unpopular line and expressing reserves about this Bill, I have done so with sincerity and only because I feel that the net result of washing our hands too soon of these islands will be to deprive the people of the benefit of our help in the years to come. They will desperately the years to come. They will be desperately in need of what the Report from which I quoted was advocating all the time, namely, the initiative and direction which a more developed country such as ours can offer to these very small islands.
I hope that my protest will nave the good result that my hon. Friend will say from the Box, "If that is what my hon. Friend thinks, I give him the assurance


here and now, that as Minister I will see that this separation of real interest between these islands and ourselves will never take place as long as I am in the Ministry". I hope that she will say something like that, assuring them of the sort of guidance and help that can too easily be lost as the result of this Bill. I hope that some of my worst fears are not realised.

8.58 p.m.

Mr. John Hall: In welcoming the intention behind the Bill I want to make a few brief remarks about St. Vincent. I found myself in considerable sympathy with the hon. Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Mr. Chapman) when he spoke about St. Vincent. I share his concern about the economic and political situation of the island. In my constituency the overwhelming number of West Indians come from St. Vincent. They come over here because the island is extremely poor, with practically no natural resources and very little industry.
The Minister will recall that considerable damage was done to the island's industry in the disastrous strike of March, 1962, which was followed by disturbances, said at that time, rightly or wrongly, to be instigated by the present Chief Minister, Mr. Joshua.
I do not want to follow the hon. Member for Birmingham, Northfield in analysing the difference between the two parties or the particular behaviour of the present Minister, or any other statesman or politician in St. Vincent. I want to make the Minister aware, if she is not already aware, of the overwhelming necessity of having the most rigid examination of the results of the last election, and making quite certain, before accepting any solution, that at least the people of St. Vincent are convinced that the Government which they have elected or are likely to elect, is the right Government and has been elected by a majority vote of the island.
As to the economic situation, I share the concern which has been expressed about the possibility that these islands will be left rather too much to their own resources. An island like St. Vincent cannot possibly exist without a good deal of injection of capital from outside. Various suggestions have been made which are designed to help that island,

but most of them were fairly small. We have heard about the deep-water port and grants are to be given for the establishment of a cotton ginnery. I am not sure how that is going. On the whole, however, all these are comparatively small.
There is no doubt that more far-reaching proposals for the development of this and other islands are needed if they are to become economically viable and able in the end to stand on their own feet. I am certain that many things can be done in St. Vincent, although I do not underrate the difficulties. I do not think that the island is developing its tourist facilities as well as it could, but this requires a great deal of money, more roads and other facilites. It is necessary to inject either Government or private money into the island.
Unless there is stability and a reasonably corruption-free Government, as far as Governments in that part of the world can be entirely corruption-free, we will not get private investment there. That is one of the reasons why it is essential to ensure that the present political situation is cleared up. The Minister of State has said that she will announce to the House when she has arrived at an agreed solution between the political leaders and the Government in this country and that she hopes to do this within the next day or two.

Mrs. Hart: I would say within the next few days.

Mr. Hall: We all look forward with considerable interest to the solution at which the hon. Lady arrives and to knowing whether it has the unanimous support of the leaders there and over here and whether, in her view, it will be acceptable in the country. It is an important decision which the hon. Lady will have to make and it might well decide whether St. Vincent can enter into an association with this country under the best possible auspices.

9.2 p.m.

Mr. John Parker: I do not have the same expert knowledge as the hon. Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Mr. Chapman) about these islands, but, having had the honour of leading a delegation there from this House a year


ago, I think that one or two of the impressions of myself and other members of the delegation are worth recording.
Knowing nothing previously about the Windward Islands, I was extraordinarily impressed by how British these islands are. No part of the Commonwealth could be more British. One felt this everywhere one went. One saw it when going round and seeing pictures of the Royal family when visiting people in their homes and talking to people in the islands.
Once or twice stories were told to me of people from these islands who met some West Africans. The West Africans taunted them by saying, "You are no more than black-faced Englishmen, you and your cricket. We have never been slaves. You will never be free." That is worth recording because I feel that we have a certain obligation to these islands, more, possibly, than to any other part of the Commonwealth, because we made money out of them when sugar was king and we took there the great part of the population as slaves from West Africa.
I have never met any community anywhere in which colour meant less or where there was a happier association together of people of different races and mixtures. They are a very happy people and I feel that we ought to help them in every way we can in building up democracy. They have this British tradition.
We visited there before the fall of Nkrumah in Ghana. Everywhere we went, the point was made to us, "We do not want to have a dictatorship established here when greater independence comes. We want safeguards against any kind of dictatorship being established. We do not want to see our police being dominated by the Government of the day and used to suppress our liberties. We want to see freedom for people who do not agree with the Government."
That was combined with a rather naive approach to the whole idea of Parliamentary government. In some islands, like Barbados, there is a long tradition of Parliamentary rule. In others, however, the tradition of self-government is fairly short. None the less, they have the feeling that they want some kind of democratic government and certain safeguards for the future.
On the other hand, one does not find an advanced party system. The political parties do not differ greatly from one another in terms of philosophies or programmes. They are parties based on groups. In the earliest days of self-government, one found a party coming to power, often called the "Labour Party", which was based on the trade unions in the ports, representing a very small proportion of the electorate but consisting of older people who had fought for independence and freedom. In some islands, these have been replaced by younger people who have returned from universities in this country and the West Indian university and taken over the country. However, whatever the party in power, the differences between it and the opposition party do not appear to be very substantial. They may grow and develop in time, but that is not the position at the moment. At the same time, despite that lack of fundamental differences, there is the desire to see that there is not established the kind of dictatorship which Nkrumah set up in Ghana.
I think that all of us will agree with the remarks made by my hon. Friend the Member for Northfield about the smallness of these units and how much more desirable it would be if a federation of the British West Indies were established to form an economic unit of a viable character. However, what is not realised here is the enormous distances involved. From Jamaica to Barbados, for example, it is over 1,000 miles, and contacts between the two have been very small in the past. Most of the islands have traded with Britain and other European countries rather than with one another. The West Indies University is building up a common feeling. Cricket, too, builds up a common feeling. In fact, anything which can build up that feeling in the islands ought to be encouraged. But it is very difficult, given the essential individuality of each of the islands, to force them together against their will, and it would be a great mistake for the British Government to try. However, one has to try to build up the idea of working together as fast as one can, though it will take quite a long time.
I feel that the economic situation will be extremely difficult in years to come. In St. Vincent, for over 100 years there were grants in aid because its people


could not balance their budget. What will be the situation in years to come? I fear that they will not get as much assistance from this country as they ought to have.
Many of them would like to be associated with this country along similar lines to those now being put forward for Gibraltar, with Members of Parliament here, and that might have been possible 50 years ago. France has associations with Martinique and Guadeloupe, and Holland has similar association with her possessions in the West Indies. In the case of France, it means that a great deal of French money goes into Guadeloupe and Martinique for development purposes. There is a certain amount of feeling among the people there of wanting independence, but, on the other hand, they are not sorry to receive great assistance from the metropolitan countries.
The tradition of association with France is a long one. Guadeloupe and Martinique have been departments of France since 1870, and there is a natural tendency for people in our islands in the West Indies to compare what we do for them with what France has done for her islands. I think that that is often to our disadvantage. Although islands like St. Lucia and Dominica have been French in the past, they are essentially British in feeling, despite the French patois that is still widely used there at the present time. We should remember that this feeling of being with Britain is extremely strong. It would be extremely callous of us to ignore it, and in the years to come we mast remember it and do our best to help our fellow British citizens in these islands.
I do not quarrel with what has been said about St. Vincent. Mr. Joshua, the Prime Minister, is a very colourful figure indeed. What we have to remember about this island is that after the ending of slavery a great deal of money was taken out of it when estates were sold and handed to the peasants, and there has not since been the capital available for development. Much of the money made out of the island in the 18th and 19th centuries was put into British industry. One of the leading British banks started in this island and developed over here subsequently. I think, therefore, that we must always have a certain responsibility for giving help to these islands in the

years to come, whatever association we may have with them, and whatever measure of independence we give them. I am in favour of that, though I would prefer to see a federal organisation of a viable character coming into being.
I welcome the Bill, but I hope it does not mean that we will refuse all responsibility for these islands and all links with them in future.

9.12 p.m.

Mr. Bryant Godman Irvine: I was gravely disturbed by the observations of the hon. Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Mr. Chapman). I am certain that nobody who has even a passing acquaintance with these islands which we are discussing tonight would in any way want to give support to a Bill which could leave them rather sooner than they ought to be left on the path which they are following.
I should like to put another aspect of the matter to the hon. Gentleman. This year I had the privilege of going to the area conference in the Caribbean of the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association. About 70 Parliamentarians from different parts of the Caribbean and of these islands were represented there. One of the things which was perfectly clear from nearly all the discussions which took place was that whatever their view may have been about the original federation, or about the arrangement between the Wind-wards and Leewards, the time had come when they had to get their heads together and find some way in which they could provide something to take the place of what was no longer available. I think that it was almost the unanimous expression of opinion among the people at that conference that the time had come for them to see whether there was some way in which they could find something to replace the federation.
They could see that it was no use a very small country trying to develop services which would cost more than it could afford. They were finding that the freedom of movement between the islands was diminishing as a result of the freedom which was being given to the various islands. I was therefore pleased to see Clause 9 which gives power to unite. I sincerely hope that as a result of the Bill


people will take advantage of the expression of the will for unity between various parts of the Caribbean.
The hon. Member for Northfield referred to the tripartite survey. One of the things which that survey made clear was that if there was going to be any progress in the Caribbean, there had to be regional development. It is impossible for them to develop on their own. If they are going to have tourism, about which the tripartite survey talks so much, they must have regional arrangements for tourism, they must be able to represent the regions abroad, and matters of that sort.
If we are to have that regional development I hope that it will be encouraged by the steps that we are taking today and that the message will go out from this House that we shall not lose interest in these islands, but are taking these steps today because we feel very keenly about their future.
Another matter which was frequently raised during the conference in the Caribbean—and certain representatives of these islands raised it very vehemently—was the small amount of aid which had been given to the islands by this country in the past. I had made investigations before I went out there to see what sort of figures I could obtain about the position, but I was not able to get a very clear picture. I found that nobody at the conference knew the exact position. When I came home I found that the figures were not available. When I asked the Minister of Overseas Development if he could let me have them it took some months before my Question was answered. The Answer was given on 5th December and it set out, for the various islands, the amount given to them since the war and the amount given in total.
The short answer is that since the war we have provided £145 million for these islands in various ways—in grants, loans and technical assistance. If there are criticisms about what we ought to have done in the past, that figure is at least worth quoting so that we know the facts. I sincerely urge the Minister to support the plea put forward by the hon. Member for Northfield that, whatever may be the result of our step tonight, the message should go out clearly

to all the people of these islands that the House is keenly interested in their future.

9.17 p.m.

Mr. John Lee (Reading): I find myself on this rather bipartisan occasion in complete agreement with the hon. Member for Rye (Mr. Bryant Godman Irvine). I propose to speak for only a few minutes, as one of the comparatively few Members who were former members of the Colonial Service, although I did not serve in the part of the world covered by the Bill.
I find myself joining issue with my hon. Friends in their criticisms of the setting up of this association, although I have considerable sympathy with the strictures of my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Mr. Chapman) about the fact that there may be some impediment, in the setting up of this association, to the promotion of as generous a form of economic development as most hon. Members would want.
The answer is that the situation has now been reached, even in the case of the smallest territories, in which, because parity of esteem is so important among emergent peoples—even peoples like this where there has been a comparatively mild, non-turbulent period of development unlike some territories in Africa and Asia—to hold back political independence in favour of or because one wishes to promote economic development that much more easily is probably to risk relationships going sour.
I share entirely my hon. Friend's views about the limitations of a small association like this, from any point of view. Hardly any Member would regard the failure of the West Indian Federation as anything but a great tragedy. Several other federations were set up by the previous Government, about which the less said the better. But the one federation which was approved by hon. Members on this side was the West Indian Federation. The previous Government were right to attempt it; it was to their credit that they did so. It was a tragedy and no blame to them that it failed.
I share the hopes that Clause 9 will be operated and that this association will be enlarged. We would not be right, however, to hold back, when there was


wide agreement between the parties in each island, and say that they should not go forward to a wider association, merely in the hope that it would be easier for this country to provide economic assistance. I hope that the Commonwealth Development Corporation and other institutions will be generous with the assistance which will be needed in these territories long after this association had proved to be a success, or a failure, or has developed into something larger.
Although the Bill is not particularly clear, I take it that this is a unique situation in constitutional law, whereby a political association is created, not itself independent, but which grants to the component parts the right to choose to be independent if they ever wish to do so. This is peculiar. The wording of Clauses 10 and 11 is not as clear as it might be. It would have been sounder if there were no right of unilateral secession. This is bound to be a loose and flimsy political association and it would have been better to have no right to secede except by general agreement. It is easy to see how the secession of one disgruntled member might trigger off general disillusionment and a premature, unnecessary disintegration. That is one substantial criticism.
Another comment concerns the complicated character of Schedule 2, which provides the machinery for this to be operated. I can understand why the Minister is anxious to ensure that the secession procedure should be put into operation only if there were a wide measure of consent in the territory concerned. I am a little sceptical about this. I have some experience of drafting constitutions. I had a hand in the drafting of the Ghana Constitution, which I regret to say was successfully wrecked—given the treatment which those of us who had put our minds to it knew it might receive from the Government—as soon after independence as they thought it possible.
I hope that the provisions for two-thirds majorities will not be merely an incitement to certain interests who see their path being jammed to resort to less constitutional methods. I hope that my hon. Friend will not regard these criticisms as churlish, because we must genuinely welcome the Bill.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Northfield said, this is a somewhat inadequate substitute for something very much better. However, we are faced, in this last stage of winding-up the Colonial Empire, with one of the most intractable problems of all, much more difficult than the political decision to give independence to a single viable territory. There is general agreement between the parties on the granting of independence now, except over Rhodesia. It is a question of trying to group together enough territories to make them economically viable without making the group so unmanageably large as to be a strain on their resources—political as much as economic resources—but without holding back that grant of independence for so long as to cause sourness in relations.
We are getting to the last stage of our Colonial responsibilities, and these responsibilities are being sloughed off. In many ways this is an organisation and methods study. The Minister has shown imagination in this association. I do not suppose that this is the only alternative that will be tried. There may be other alternatives in the future, in dealing, for example, with the islands in the West Pacific High Commission. However, in the meantime I commend the Bill to the House.

9.27 p.m.

Earl of Dalkeith: Having had the great privilege of taking part in the C.P.A. delegation which visited the Windward Islands about a year ago tinder the leadership of my hon. Friend the Member for Dagenham (Mr. Parker), I endorse much of what has been said about the extraordinary British flavour and atmosphere that one finds there. I suspect that, following his leadership, when one returns there in a year's time one may find hi4 photograph alongside those one sees displayed in many places.
Anyone who has sampled the delights of the islands and the hospitality of their inhabitants will wish, having studied their problems, to take this opportunity to offer good wishes to the people of the Windward Islands, and particularly to those whom we visited, on the great adventure on which they are embarking. I still glow with the memory of the


hospitality and friendy nature of the many people we met, and one could not help but be impressed by the determination, resolution and calibre of the politicians—the way in which they are setting out to tackle the difficult problems which lie ahead and, at the same time, are wishing to do so in the best traditions of democracy. In no island did this appear more apparent than in Dominica, which in many respects has further to go from the point of view of commercial development than any of the others. I was indeed impressed by the realistic programme which it has drawn up for a scheme of capital investment, and this bears out what the hon. Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Mr. Chapman) said.
When the time comes for a loosening of the apron strings—and I do not share the view expressed by the hon. Member for Northfield when he spoke about casting these islands adrift; we are merely loosening the apron strings—it is not unnatural, when one considers the affection which has been built up for these islands, that one should have a great deal of concern for their future well-being.
It is comforting to note that the Bill is the result of the closest consultation between the representative bodies of these islands and that, even more important, included in that consultation was the full expression of views of the Opposition as well as of the Government parties. It is important and right that that should be on the record. Not having been present at the Lancaster House Conferences in the spring, I believe that I am safe in saying that this is what they themselves decided—and the best of British luck to them. One cannot help feeling that the form of association which has been drawn up and which is outlined in this Bill is yet another excellent example to other nations, including those behind the "Iron Curtain" and the "Bamboo Curtain", of how the aspirations of freedom-loving people to be their own masters can be granted.
There are one or two specific points arising from the Bill on which I should like a little clarification. First, I ask whether or not the Minister feels that adequate provision has been made, or sufficient assurances have been given, in regard to Her Majesty's Government

making technical advice freely available to those islands which may require it to further their economic, social and commercial development.
I believe the hon. Member for Northfield was too pessimistic when he spoke about the way in which we were cutting the islands adrift and were in danger of losing interest in their development. I think we shall not lose interest in their development, because this is a different association from that to which the hon. Member might have referred. There is every bit as much obligation on Her Majesty's Government to have regard to these islands no matter what form of association they have.
I make the comment, in passing, that of course the best magnet for investment in the islands is political stability. If they can show that they mean business when they talk about political stability and democratic processes, that of itself will be a great inducement to investment. In this context I am talking about private investment, because I believe there is enormous scope for businessmen to invest in these islands if the opportunity is made available to them.
Investment by Her Majesty's Government is something which can be pursued through the Government's existing channels for performing this kind of aid. One would, of course, stress—and it is the same in the United Kingdom in relation to development districts—that one wants to be very careful that the kind of investment indulged in should be self-regenerating. That is something which we have learned in Scotland. As the hon. Lady represents a Scottish constituency, no doubt this is something she understands and will be able to implement.
The subject of defence is referred to in rather broad terms in the Bill and there is no specific reference to what the British Government can do in the way of claiming this or that piece of territory in order to set up a base. I presume that there will be some method by which Her Majesty's Government could negotiate with the Government of a particular island for a piece of land for a base, for a seaport or an airport. A little clarification of this would be helpful, although I see very little prospect of any of these islands becoming "little Cubas" in future


and the need for elaborate arrangements for defence seems very remote.
Many of us have received representations about St. Vincent and many of us have views about its problems. The least said about them at this juncture the better. I wish the hon. Lady the best of luck in the course of carrying out discussions in the next few days and I sincerely pray that those with whom she is negotiating will look upon their problems with the greatest of wisdom and tranquillity. Then I am sure the right solutions will be found. I hope that they will find the right answer and that St. Vincent will not be the odd man out when the appointed day is decided on for all the islands.

9.35 p.m.

Mr. William Baxter: There can be no disagreement in the House as to our feelings towards the inhabitants of these islands. Those of us who have had the pleasure of going there have been greatly impressed by the courtesy, kindness and delightful nature of the inhabitants, and by the politeness of their children. They are an excellent people. Whatever their future may be, they have the good wishes of us all.
I believe that they will be beset with great difficulties in the future. They have only a small population. They will have difficulty in starting suitable industries to keep that population in a decent standard of life. When nations as small as these become independent, they have a tendency to become ambitious. A typical example of this is Barbados. This is a very small island with a population of about a quarter of a million which has taken upon itself the heavy financial burden of having representation at the United Nations. The cost is about £100,000. They can ill afford this gesture to greatness. If they would remember the old Scottish philosophy that it is better to go gradually or to creep slowly than to rush too quickly they would gain in the future.
The Reports on these islands, in foreshadowing some of the improvements which are to be brought about, speak of the possibility of securing a better standard by increasing the tourist industry. It quotes the Hilton Hotel in Barbados. This hotel is too ambitious and caters for only a very limited clientele. It cost

£3 million or £4 million and was built with Government money, not by the Hilton organisation. That Government money could have been better spent on more useful purposes. That is my opinion, and I think that the Reports bears it out.
Owing to the climatic conditions and the very kindly disposition of the people, they have not that tenacity of purpose and drive which is absolutely essential to bring about the industrialisation of their islands. Most of them depend upon the sugar crop, but the by-product of that crop is not utilised. The by-product which could come from the cane is probably the best wax that could be produced. There is also the possibility of using the dry material for the making of boards for housing. However, that is not used. It is just wasted. There is no initiative. There is no drive. At this moment, with the starting of the sugar cane crop, they have great difficulty in getting workers to cut the sugar cane because of the hard and difficult work involved.
It would be in the best interests of the islands to maintain a close link and association with a nation such as ours. It would be in our interests as well as theirs that we should give them help, not only monetary help, but technical help and research help, not only in relation to the sugar industry but in relation to other aspects of the utilisation of their land for better and more profitable agricultural products. If it were not for the sugar agreement we have with these countries, they would be in very difficult straits indeed.
What depresses me on going there is the fact that the help and assistance we have given over the years—the figure of £140 million has been mentioned—is not known by anybody—least of all by Members of this House. I take Barbados as an illustration again. There is no indication to be seen there that Britain has done anything for that country. One can see that America plays an important part there. It can be seen that Canada is very well represented. For our part, we seem to have forgotten that we have a rôle to play and that we should tell the people of the réle we are prepared to play.
I cannot, for the life of me, understand why we have gone on in this fashion over the years, not letting people know what


help we have brought to them and the return which we should reasonably expect to receive from that help. I might not be putting this as well as I should like, but I would counsel those islands who under the provisions of the Bill will now get close association with Britain, to continue that association. We should encourage further development in those islands. There should be research into the type of industry which would be more suitable to the aptitude and mental capacity of the people. There are types of industry which could be suitable and other types which would not be. This requires a certain amount of research. If we are to help them, we should do so by sending individuals to give the people the impetus to go forward and to produce the type of wood carving, for instance, which would start them on their way.
It is a very difficult problem. The islands are going into most difficult times. This applies not only to the small islands but to Barbados. The future for the islands cannot be regarded with any certainty. I would counsel them, as I would counsel Barbados, to cut their coats according to their cloth, and to try to make themselves as self-supporting as possible, without too many commitments.
I sincerely wish these people well. They are most wonderful people. They are most polite and most generous. Their children are most delightful to speak to. I am sure that it is the wish of the House that, in being given this greater freedom, they will not forget their great responsibility not only to their own generation, but to the future generations of the islands.
I say in passing that much more health education in family planning and so on, is needed. A great deal of work has to be done in the islands. They will not be able to do it themselves. If they cease to be as closely associated with Britain as they should be, then I see perils ahead for them. I would therefore counsel them to keep their association with this country and to try to develop their natural resources as best they can in conjunction with our knowledge and understanding.

9.41 p.m.

Dame Joan Vickers: I am very glad to have the opportunity of speaking in this debate, as I

have done, as the hon. Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Mr. Chapman) remarked, on several occasions in similar debates on other islands.
I should also like to wish the hon. Lady the Minister of State success in her new job within her Ministry. I believe she was dealing with Africa before. We wish her success in dealing with the problems which have to be faced, particularly in regard to St. Vincent.
I am not nearly as gloomy as some of the hon. Members who have spoken. Independence often encourages initiative. It gives people incentive. They have to feel that they are on their own, and this gives them an incentive for the future. I am certain that we shall not shirk our responsibilities. We have not done so in the past, and I cannot see why we should do so now. I hope that when the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Overseas Development goes on his visit, he will inquire, as the hon. Lady said he would, into ways in which we can help with the technical aid, which was mentioned by the hon. Member for West Stirlingshire (Mr. W. Baxter), and that he will be able to take with him a present to celebrate this new association.
I am particularly interested in this new form of Constitution. It proves how flexible we are in the Commonwealth. We can only hope that this will work out. I cannot see why it should not, as long as we give it every chance in putting forward our ideas as constructively as possible.
I am not worried about one party having more votes than another and not getting the corresponding number of seats. That has happened in this country. A party has had more votes than another and has not been the party in power. This happens in a democracy, and we have to recognise it.
I am worried about what is referred to in Schedule 2. It is a very complicated Schedule. I never like referendums. The Federation of the West Indies came to an end on a referendum in Jamaica. In a referendum, people nearly always vote against something. This has happened so often. I would much prefer to see it done through Parliament in the ordinary way and not through a referendum


of all those eligible to elect their representatives.
The White Paper says:
The Governor will appoint as Premier the member of the House of Assembly who in his judgment is best able to command the confidence of a majority of the members of that House.
I would much prefer that individual to be elected by the party in power rather than selected by the Governor. We in this House elect the leaders of our parties and I would have thought that that would be better and would not put so much responsibility on the Governor. It may be rather difficult for him always to ascertain who in his judgment commands the confidence of the majority of members of the House of Assembly.
I was also interested to see that there can be further consultations about the Senate, for instance. It says that the Senate is to consist of 10 Senators—this is the Constitution of Antigua—who are to be appointed on the advice of the Premier and that three are to be appointed after consultation with the Premier. I do not see what the difference is. I would have thought that the two—advice and consultation—were more or less synonymous.

Mrs. Hart: There is a very important difference. With appointments on advice, in any conflict of view those who give the advice have the choice. It is rather different when it is a matter of appointment with consent or agreement.

Dame Joan Vickers: I thank the hon. Lady for that explanation, but I still feel it might have been better to have made all the appointments in consultation. I would think that that would make it much easier.
What is to be the status of the Premiers in future vis-àvis other Prime Ministers and other Commonwealth leaders? Are they to be allowed to attend the Commonwealth Prime Ministers' Conference? Are they to have access to the help of the Commonwealth Secretariat? What will be their status with the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association? As the hon. Lady will know, at the moment they are entitled to send one representative, but will they in future be allowed to send the same type of representation as other countries which are fully independent? When some matter

affecting them is referred to the United Nations, although we are to represent the islands for external matters and for defence, will a representative from the islands be able to put their point of view at the United Nations? This ought to be one of their privileges if they are to have independence.
The Bill provides for more than 20 Orders in Council. For instance, Clause 7 says that Her Majesty may make laws for the Associated States. I presume that this will be different from Clauses 13 and 14, because Clause 17(3) says:
Any order in Council made under section 13 or section 14 of this Act shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.
If all the other Orders in Council can be made, and Her Majesty has power to make an Order in Council at the request, or with the consent, of any associated State, why must we have this procedure, under which one political party can pray against an Order, and then get ourselves involved in the political points of view in those other countries? I would like to see the same procedure as that used in Clause 7, but there may be some reason for not using that. Perhaps the hon. Lady will let me know.
It seems to me to be unfortunate that we might be persuaded to pray against something when the persuasion might not represent the views of the islands concerned. We have heard tonight expressions of opinion, for instance about the island of St. Vincent. We can only put forward details of which we are made aware through letters or by delegates who come to see us and so on. Could we not have the same procedure all through the Bill as for the other Orders in Council?
What will be our real contact with the islands in future? It has been suggested that it might be a good idea to offer them the right to send representatives to this House. That would be extremely difficult and probably very boring in many ways for such representatives, because so much in the House would not concern them. As they have Senates, I would like them to be able to have representation in the House of Lords so that they could put their points of view there. That would give them real contact with this country, and in the House of Lords the representatives would have the added advantage that when they travelled such a


long distance to make a speech they would know that they would make it, unlike the situation so often in this House, when the best of one's speeches go into the waste paper basket or are put away for a future occasion. I make that suggestion seriously because we would then be able to have their full views.
I hope that as often as possible in future a local person from the islands concerned will be made the Governor. That principle has worked extremely well in both Trinidad and Jamaica. If the islands are to be independent in this manner they should be seen to be independent and be able to have one of their own people as Governor. That may not happen at once, but I hope that it will be borne in mind.
I am not certain that I like the kind of association proposed. Could we not just call the islands "free States of the Commonwealth", or some name that shows that they are completely free but also members of the Commonwealth? That would give them far more standing than under the proposals in the Bill.
It has been pointed out in several speeches tonight that the islands are poor in material, but I can assure the hon. Lady that the people are not poor in spirit. They are the gayest and happiest people I know. If one wants a really happy Sunday one can go to those islands and see how to enjoy oneself, because the islanders have a magnificent spirit, and they also have a religious faith which will uphold them in many ways.

9.55 p.m.

Mr. David Steel: I want to add the good wishes of the Liberal Party to those expressed by Government and Opposition to this new association on its birth, not least because it has tremendous implications not just for the six territories but also for the other dependent territories over which we still have control. Few people realise that we in this House still are directly responsible, excluding Aden, for about 7 million people scattered in parcels large and small all over the world.
With the exception of the most difficult problem of Hong Kong, I hope that this model that we have before us now will be something from which we can learn

and which we can adapt and mould and which may be useful in other parts of the world in the next few years.
The Bill contains a very important new constitutional principle and I am surprised that not more interest has been expressed by hon. Members other than those who have personal knowledge of these islands. Despite what the hon. Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Mr. Chapman) said, some of the attractions of the Bill lie in its flexibility—that it is still open to these territories to come together in federation by themselves or with others if they so decide and to end the form of association laid down here.
Throughout the speeches in the debate, there has been the recurring interest of hon. Members in concern that, by passing the Bill, we shall not cut these islands adrift and that there shall be some continuation not only of our emotional but of our financial interest in these territories. The hon. Lady the Minister of State skated over that aspect rather thinly and I hope that, when she replies, she will give some information of what the ties are to be and what the continuing interest is to be in these new territories under their new status.

9.57 p.m.

Sir Douglas Glover: I do not rise to speak as an expert on the West Indies. In my Parliamentary career, I have been invited to visit most of the world and most of the islands. But one group of islands to which I have never been is the West Indies. I have been to the Fiji Islands, the Seychelles and Mauritius and I would love to have gone to the West Indies. I hope that the Inter-Parliamentary Union or the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association are listening, for I have never been invited to the West Indies.
When my party was in power and we evolved the Federation of the West Indies, even although I had not been there it struck me as being an airy-fairy conception because we do not realise how far the islands are separated from each other. If we in this House brought forward as a serious debating point the proposition that Cyprus and Israel should be joined to this country, we would say, "It is impossible; they are too far away." But they are much closer to us than many of the islands in the West Indies are to


each other. It was inevitable that the Federation would break down, although a great pity.
Now we are dealing with the practical results of the breakdown and, on a much smaller scale, with the practical problems that confront these islands. My principal reason for speaking is that, as you know, Mr. Speaker, I am Chairman of the Anti-Slavery Society and I think that one must always take great pride and happiness in these islands, whose history was largely built up on the slave trade but which are now getting their independence.
If I may take a "dig" at the African nations, I am astonished that the people of the West Indies, whose ancestors were transported across the Atlantic in not exactly salubrious conditions, seem to be far more "clued up" when it comes to government and democracy than the Africans are in a continent from which the people of the West Indies originally came. Transportation seems to have given them a great deal more solidarity or—to use a Lancashire or Yorkshire expression—"bottom" than those in Africa. They are not as mercurial, of course, although they have their steel bands. I am happy that these six islands are getting their independence. Having said that, I want to come to a much more detailed problem.
My hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dame Joan Vickers) in a very able speech touched upon this problem. These islands will not be completely independent; they will be rather like Jersey and Guernsey. We will still look after their foreign affairs, but they will be self-governing. We are missing a great opportunity here. At some stage, with all the other groups of islands which have come to independence—

It being Ten o'clock, the debate stood adjourned.

Ordered,
That the Proceedings on the West Indies Bill, on the Order of the day relating to Agriculture, and on the Motion relating to Prices and Incomes may be entered upon and proceeded with at this day's Sitting at any hour, though opposed.—[Mr. Fitch.]

Question again proposed, That the Bill be now read a Second time.

Sir D. Glover: When all of the other groups of islands such as the Seychelles, Mauritius, Fiji, the Solomons and so on, come to independence we shall be dealing with about 7 million people. None of these island groups, unless they bankrupt themselves, would be in a position to be properly represented at the United Nations.
The British Government have a wonderful opportunity now. With the exception of Rhodesia, we are dealing with island communities, not political problems. We are not arguing about whether a unit gets its independence, but about how one gives a community of 30,000 people, 1,000 miles from anywhere, independence. If these people are to feel independent, then we have to begin to evolve, in consultation with U Thant, some machinery in the United Nations, perhaps a joint secretariat or joint mission, which would enable these communities to raise any matters that they wished at the United Nations.
It may be that if these islands with which we are now dealing have to make representations to the United Nations through us, they might be a little suspicious, and would prefer to do so through the secretariat dealing with such small communities. Perhaps these communities would not necessarily have a vote in the United Nations but they would be able to air their problems there.
The House should take a great deal of notice of what I am saying, because in the next five years or thereabouts we shall not only give independence to about 7 million people, but if these independent communities apply for membership of the United Nations then the membership will rise from 120 to 160. Each of these communities wants to feel that it has a voice. If we just maintain their local independence and remain the authority speaking for them in the United Nations and other international affairs, then, when they quarrel with us, as they are bound to, human nature being what it is, they will feel deprived of any independent body through which to air their grievances.
I ask the hon. Lady seriously to consider whether we could not evolve a new system. This applies not only to Britain, but to France, which has quite a lot of islands in the West Indies. There are a lot of other small communities, such as


the Dutch possessions, none of which justifies independent status and none of which probably wishes to be represented at the United Nations as such because they cannot afford it.
Jamaica and Trinidad have produced some of the most outstanding representatives at the United Nations, but anybody who knows the United Nations knows that Ambassador Richardson, for instance, is worked to a frazzle because he is the one chap representing his country. He cannot be in the First Committee, the Second Committee, the Third Committee, the Fourth Committee, the Fifth Committee, the Sixth Committee, and the Anti-Colonialist Committee. He knows that he cannot do the whole job, yet he is the representative of Jamaica. How much worse it would be for these much smaller communities.
We could build up a Secretariat in the United Nations if we began to talk about it. The hon. Lady will agree with me that any change in the procedure of this House would take a long time to bring about. Similarly in the United Nations. This will not come about because we raise it next year. It is the sort of thing we must raise now and begin to talk about and, as a result of discussions, evolve a system for the small communities which cannot justify full independence so that they will have a forum where their views, objections and grouses can be raised at the United Nations, which, under the present procedure, they will not be able to do.
The hon. Member for West Stirling-shire (Mr. W. Baxter), to whose speeches I always listen with great interest, talked a great deal of common sense about industry. I am not at all certain, however, that the advice of what I would call a highly-geared economist is what these islands need. A highly-geared economist would be inclined to say, "If you use this by-product to make wood on a cost-plus basis, it is not economic compared with what is produced in Nigeria, Britain or elsewhere." That is not the point. The point is, how much would it cost to import real wood into those islands? We are dealing with a primitive community. What these people want is not highly-geared economists, but practical men to advise them. That is much more important.
It may cost 50 per cent. more to produce the wood to build a house, but as the wood or the by-product is grown on the island there is no import or export cost. They do not have to export £50 million worth of bananas to pay for it. From the islands' viewpoint, that is a far sounder economy.
The real problem with so many of these island communities is that economically they never will be viable. I am not now talking about a particular island in the West Indies. A lot of them never will be viable. I spent an interesting trip in the Seychelles. Apart from the international airport I can say that I had—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member must relate his remarks to the Bill.

Sir D. Glover: I am citing the Seychelles as an instance, Mr. Speaker. I had a lot to do with getting the machinery for the airport. This applies in these islands in the West Indies. Economically, they are not viable. It is rather like the make-do-and-mend about which we used to talk in the Army. It is making the maximum use possible of the materials which exist in an island. It is not true to say that it is possible to establish a manufacturing industry 1,000 miles from its nearest customer and compete with someone else.
Most of the islands will exist on a make-do-and-mend basis. It is not the high-powered industrialist or economist who is required. What is required is the practical man who will make the maximum use of the raw materials which exist to reduce to the minimum the amount of money which has to be earned overseas. I am sure that the hon. Member for West Stirlingshire will agree with that view.
From my tours round the world, it is apparent that that is not the advice which so many people from the Colonial Service and the United Nations give to these little communities. They are overambitious. They think that by some wave of a wand, they can have a steel-works or some other nonsense. They will never have a steelworks. They have to realise that, unfortunately for them, God has put them down in delightful surroundings, but that they are way out of the stream of commercial activity.
The importance, therefore, is to work out an economy which makes the maximum use of what is grown on the island, and by substitution and all sorts of other means, to give them the best possible standard of living under those conditions. It would be a great mistake to establish industries which will never compete with the world outside the islands themselves.
The principal point which I wanted to get into the hon. Lady's mind was the one about the United Nations. I have been saying to her tonight something which is very important. We are dealing with 30 or 40 different territories which will never be in a position to be viably independent. From time to time, they may want to raise issues at the United Nations. Surely we could evolve machinery with the Secretariat in New York by means of which, when that sort of problem arises, it can be raised at the United Nations without each island having a mission, an ambassador, a first secretary and so on, the support of whom would cause an enormous amount of economic embarrassment to so many of the small nations.

10.14 p.m.

Mrs. Hart: With the permission of the House, I will reply to some of the points which have been made during the debate. I hope that I can deal with all of them, but there have been a great many and, if I miss any, I shall make sure that I give them a written reply.
First of all, may I take up the point which the right hon. Member for Bridlington (Mr. Wood) raised and one or two of the others, concerning the technical aspects of the Bill. The right hon. Gentleman was worried about the procedure under the Bill for termination and the extent to which it was written into the Bill. He pointed out that it was there in the Windwards Report and that concerned with St. Kitts, but not mentioned in the one dealing with Antigua. He will probably be content when he knows that our view is that the simple assurance that Britain would not terminate the association unilaterally without giving six months' notice still stands on the record in the Command Paper. That is a positive and firm assurance, and no need was felt by anyone at the Conferences to make statutory provision and have it written into the Bill.

Mr. Wood: Presumably, that will go for Antigua, too, although it is not on the written record of that Conference.

Mrs. Hart: Yes. That is the undertaking which has been given. The statement that he would be prepared to hold a conference depends on the willingness of the other party to join in a conference, so the same thing cannot quite apply there. But it also stands on the record in the Command Paper. The specific reference to Parliamentary approval in the Bill is Clause 17.
The right hon. Gentleman raised a point about Clause 14. The provisions of this Clause are there, because in some of the events which are envisaged it may be necessary to provide in United Kingdom legislation for Acts of Parliament or instruments made under those Acts to continue as if no change had occurred, to provide for the continuity of existing legislation where one does not want to make a change. The Clause enables this to be done by Order in Council, but it is qualified by Clause 15(4,a) under which an Order will apply only to a limited extent, if at all, as part of law of the territory. That sounds a little complex, but the point is that the preservation of British laws will be done only where this is necessary to provide for existing United Kingdom legislation.
The third point which the right hon. Gentleman made concerned the question of paragraph 18 of the Windward Report, and Clause 7. It is a fact that nothing in the Bill in terms reflects the statement in paragraph 18 of the Windward Report, but it will be included in the agreement with Antigua, and with any other State if that should be its wish, so this matter is not covered by the Bill, but is covered in the agreement.
The hon. Lady the Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dame Joan Vickers) raised a number of points on the Bill, and if she will forgive me I think that on a few of the specific detailed ones I shall write to her.
Perhaps I should comment on what the hon. Lady said about the choice of premier, because this is of some importance. The position here is that the provisions whereby the governor appoints as premier the member whom he thinks commands a majority is the provision in the present constitution of the territories, and it obtains in most Commonwealth


countries. In other words, this is the normal way of doing things, that the Governor appoints as premier the man whom he thinks command a majority. It is what the territories want, and there seems no reason to change that. That is why that provision is in the form it is.
I turn now to more general points. I am delighted that so many hon. Members on both sides of the House have taken part in the debate. Quite apart from what they have said, I think that this is an indication of the measure of interest that the House of Commons has in these territories in the West Indies, and is, I think, a clear indication that there is no likelihood at all that the interest of the House of Commons in them will diminish by the mere fact that their status in relation to ours is changed. I am very glad that so many hon. Members have spoken, and have had such interesting contributions to make.
Perhaps I might deal first with the contribution made by the hon. Member for Ormskirk (Sir D. Glover), who raised a point which is bound to become one of considerable interest in the future. I think that it is probably a little early for anyone to have worked out any specific ideas about this, but he put forward a proposal, and I think that there is great merit in his having drawn attention to the fact that this is likely to be a problem in the future, and that we ought to be applying our minds to it.

Sir D. Glover: I am grateful to the hon. Lady for being so kind. Usually we are much more vitriolic to each other. The point is that, knowing the United Nations as I do, as an ex-delegate, I know that it takes a long time before it begins to get seized of a problem, and if we want this to operate, it has to begin to operate now, not in three or four years time.

Mrs. Hart: I take the hon. Gentleman's point, and share his delight that on this occasion we are not quarrelling as bitterly as we often do.
The hon. Lady the Member for Devon-port raised two or three very interesting points, and in respect of two of them I can only say that I have noted them. The first is her idea that there should be membership from the associated States in the House of Lords. I note that suggestion and also her suggestion about the

name. Nomenclature is a difficulty, and in any new form of relationship that is arrived at in future, finding the right name, which means so much, is a very important matter.
The hon. Lady also raised the question of membership of the Commonwealth Prime Ministers' Conference. On that point I should tell her that this matter is not in our hands. It can be decided only by the Commonwealth Prime Ministers, and this Bill will have to become law before the question could be raised.
The noble Lord the Member for Edinburgh, North (Earl of Dalkeith) raised the question of defence facilities and asked what the position would be. It will be as follows: the territorial Governments undertake to provide us and our allies with defence facilities. This means that the territorial Governments have signified their readiness to agree, and will shortly be signing agreements as part of the arrangements for introducing the new association, to provide such facilities as may be required by us in connection with our defence responsibilities. We shall proceed in these matters in the fullest consultation with them. It seems most unlikely that we shall want to invoke the agreement for any purpose so far-reaching as setting up a base. Facilities are provided for in the agreement we shall be signing.
My hon. Friend the Member for Reading (Mr. John Lee) expressed some doubt about the concept of association. He was anxious about the chain reaction that might be produced if one associated State wished to dissociate. He may have slightly misconceived the concept of association. The position is that each associated State will be associated with Britain but the associated States will not be associated with each other. There will be no body called "the Association". Each State will be in association with us, but there will be freedom under the Bill for any of the associated States which wish to do so to federate with each other, or with another State. It is a dual relationship between each of them and us, but not a circular one.
General questions were raised concerning the future of the islands, their economies, and their development. These were very correct questions to raise. In reply


to my hon. Friend the Member for West Stirlingshire (Mr. W. Baxter) and to the noble Lord, I should point out that we are talking about the economic development of the areas concerned and about our own economic aid. Technical advice, and the kind of advice of which the noble Lord spoke, and which would produce self-generating projects in the areas, are fully covered in the overseas aid and the help given by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Overseas Development. This is exactly the kind of thing that he does.
There is no reason why special help should be given to the islands at this point, in addition to the level of aid at present given. Our promises to them still stand and are at the moment as generous as we can make them. I am sure that when my right hon. Friend is there he will observe the way in which our help is being given and the way in which it is being used, and will bring back his own ideas about possibilities for the future.
Reference has been made to the tripartite economic programme. My hon. Friend drew attention to the report by independent economists, which has recommended that significant development could be achieved only if there were full regional economic co-operation. The report recommends the establishment of a regional development agency which would provide technical services on a regional basis and might also establish a development bank for the area. A meeting to discuss the report was held as recently as November last year between the sponsoring and the island Governments, and at that meeting it was decided to ask the United Nations Development Programme to sponsor the study of a regional development bank which would include the independent Commonwealth countries of the Caribbean. At the same time the island Governments agreed to form a regional development committee with which the sponsoring Governments would be associated. A great deal of progress was made at the meeting.
We hope that the United Nations will agree to sponsor the study of the Regional Development Bank. It is important to understand that there is nothing in the Bill to hold up any of this. It can all proceed. There is no limitation on this regional development or the setting up of regional agencies, nor would I expect there to be any. I would expect only that

such moves would be strengthened by the association of the states and their greater degree of self-government.
My hon. Friend will know—I should like all hon. Members who do not know to be told—that last year the Ministry of Overseas Development established the British Development Division in the Caribbean, in Barbados. The staff of the Division consists of the head and advisers in economics, agriculture, education, engineering and finance. Its functions are to advise the British Government on the scope and content of the aid programme and to provide technical advice to the local Governments, particularly in the formulation and co-ordination of development projects.
This is, of course, primarily a matter for the Minister of Overseas Development, but the Division covers nearly all the countries bordering the Caribbean, although its primary responsibility will be towards the small islands in the Eastern Caribbean. I hope to visit the Caribbean in the near future to see for myself what seems to be needed, to see what I can tell my right hon. Friend the Minister of Overseas Development when we discuss these things.
My hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Mr. Chapman) is right to say that there is a difficulty in the I.D.A. criterion which has caused trouble in the small islands, as it will not go into any territory with a population of fewer than 250,000, which excludes all those covered by the Bill. If the scattered territories would federate, they would qualify for I.D.A. assistance, which might amount to a great deal. We have done what we can and taken initiatives.
We wrote to the territories some time ago and suggested that, even before federation, they might want to produce some co-operative scheme on the basis of which they could apply for I.D.A. assistance. However, this piece of United Kingdom initiative has produced no response. It is the kind of thing that the new Development Division could stimulate and is what my right hon. Friend will have in mind when he goes there.

Mr. Chapman: I am delighted that my hon. Friend is dealing with this and I sense that she will keep her eye on it now. But would it not be a good thing


to take this all up with a regional commissioner, whose job was to see that all these plans were successfully co-ordinated in a form to be presented to the I.D.A. and do other things to help co-ordinate the activities of the island and bring them closer together? We must take initiatives all the time.

Mrs. Hart: I agree that we must take initiatives and that our initiatives must be designed further to promote as rapidly as possible every kind of feasible economic development. The experience of the Development Division might lead it to some such conclusion.
I come now to the main point underlying my hon. Friend's criticism of the Bill and much of what I have been saying about economic development in the area. I will not touch on his remarks about St. Vincent. I think the House will appreciate that this is not the best moment to rake over some of the past events there. I hope that an agreement can be reached and I do not want to jeopardise it.
In relation to the principle of the Bill, my hon. Friend raised the question of how far associated status was compatible with the sustained initiatives for economic development—as he quoted it from the tripartite survey—which must come from outside. What my hon. Friend is asking for if he pursues this line is total dependence of these territories upon us, because, whatever the degree of self-government which a territory achieves, be it limited self-government, which is what my hon. Friend said that he would have preferred to this system of association, or in whatever respect self-government is applied, I would have to stand at this Box whenever my hon. Friend asked a Parliamentary Question and say that I could not answer it because it concerned a matter in which the State concerned ran its own affairs. This means that as soon as one moves from total dependence to any other new arrangements, one is there-by quite deliberately handing over many decisions about an area to the area and its people.
If my hon. Friend argues that for too many years—and I do not speak in party political terms, but speak of the years of history—too little was done to prepare the way for later constitutional advance, I agree with him, but at this point in time the world has got hold of an idea and an idea cannot be pushed back or held back.
What is important is that we should recognise that, having abandoned paternalism and having abandoned colonialism and having in the Bill brought into being a new kind of association between a former dependent territory and ourselves, we nevertheless assert our continuing interest in the area and we nevertheless assert our continuing responsibility to provide economic assistance and technical assistance and aid to the area and to continue to take whatever initiatives we can and to encourage other international agencies to take their initiatives in co-operation with the people in the territories in association with us.
That is a fair statement and it offers plenty of possibility for the future. I think that it is a better substitute than any other which has so far been devised of thought of as a means of giving independence, in association with Britain, so that Britain, as the Bill provides, retains her capacity in external and foreign affairs to give the protection which these territories still believe that they need.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time.

Bill committed to a Committee of the whole House.—[Mr. Gourlay.]

Committee Tomorrow.

WEST INDIES [MONEY]

[Queen's Recommendation having been signified]

Resolved,
That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to confer on certain West Indian territories a new status of association with the United Kingdom, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of any increase attributable to that Act in the sums payable out of moneys so provided under the Overseas Development and Service Act 1965 or the Overseas Aid Act 1966.—[Mrs. Hart.]

AGRICULTURE

Order read for resuming adjourned debate on Question [30th January]:

That Mr. Peter Bessell, Dr. John Dunwoody, Mr. Tony Gardner, Mr. Garrett, Mr. Bert Hazell, Mr. J. E. B. Hill, Mr. Bryant Godman Irvine, Mr. Michael Jopling, Mr. Clifford Kenyon, Mr. Peter Mills, Mr. Elystan Morgan, Mr. Derek Page, Mr. Patrick Wall, and Mr. Tudor Watkins be Members of the Committee.—[Mr. Harper.]

Question again proposed.

Question put and agreed to.

Orders of the Day — PRICES AND INCOMES

10.34 p.m.

Mrs. Margaret Thatcher: I beg to move,
That the Temporary Restrictions on Pay Increases (No. 1) Order 1966 (S.I., 1966, No. 1444), dated 18th November, 1966, a copy of which was laid before this House on 18th November, be withdrawn.
Before I come to the subject matter of the Order, I should like to offer our congratulations and best wishes to the Parliamentary Secretary, because I believe that this is his first appearance at the Dispatch Box. He is a great loss to the back benches, and he will be a great acquisition to the Front Bench. He had a distinguished predecessor, and I am certain that in due time his successor will also have had a distinguished predecessor.
I now turn to the Order, which is one of the now fairly numerous examples of compulsion being applied under Part IV of the Prices and Incomes Act. It concerns 34 people who work at the Rockware Glass Co. Ltd.
As I understand them, the facts of the case are that the 34 men are maintenance engineers in a factory which employs about 1,070 people. The factory produces glass under a continuous process, which means that the furnaces must be kept going for 24 hours a day, and for seven days a week. Maintenance work must therefore be carried out while the hot furnaces are still running. It may need to be done as much as twice a day or only twice a week, according to circumstances. It is accepted that the work is uncomfortable and inconvenient, and it has always been accepted that it attracts a special payment.
Before September, that payment was at the rate of 1 s. 10½d. an hour. As it had stayed at that rate for some four years, the maintenance engineers felt that the time was ripe for an increase, and negotiated an increase for that work with the management. On 27th September, they agreed with the management an increase bringing the rate of pay up to about 2s. 3d. an hour. That was after the statement of 20th July. The management wished to comply with the Government's request to support the prices

and incomes standstill and therefore felt that it could not pay the increase.
The maintenance engineers took a rather different view, and I do not think that that is surprising. Perhaps we in the House might take the view that if we had not had an increase for some four years we might warrant being treated as a rather special case. At any rate, we took that view comparatively recently. The maintenance engineers felt that the prices and incomes freeze was not meant to apply to that kind of payment, and because the firm would not agree to pay them they decided not to do maintenance work on the furnaces. I understand that they did everything else in accordance with their normal duties except work on those furnaces. They did not strike or anything like that; they just refused that job.
The firm managed to continue during the whole of October without their services by bringing in staff to do the maintenance work on the furnaces. According to Press cuttings, it then found that it could not carry on any longer and said that it would have to pay the increase, for otherwise the whole plant might have to go out of commission.
It informed the appropriate Ministry that it would pay the increase from 4th November, and consequent upon that information the Order was made on 18th November and came into operation on 21st November. The company naturally obeyed the Order, and the men concerned met their union officials to decide what to do. They did not decide immediately to go straight back to their duties. They tried to find out the implications of the Order.
Those are the bare facts as I understand them. I believe them to be correct in every detail, but I shall doubtless be corrected by the Parliamentary Secretary if I have said anything that is not strictly in accordance with the facts.
A number of points arise. First, as far as I am aware, this is the first Order to be made in a case where there has been no previous increase for a period as long as four years. If the Order runs its full appointed span, there will have been nearly five years between the last increase and the next possible increase for doing that job. That is a very long time.
I contrast it with one or two other cases under the prices and incomes régime. The Government have permitted a number of increases in cases where people get regular annual increases every year, and naturally it seems rather ironic that some people are permitted their annual increases and yet others have an Order made against them when they have not had an increase for their work for a period of some four years. I see that the hon. Gentleman looks rather puzzled. I am referring to the considerable number of people who have annual increments, for an increment is an increase whatever one likes to call it, none the less so because it is laid down in regular stages.
The hon. Gentleman also knows that there have been a considerable number of other increases which have got through, some of which the Ministry knew about, with the Government being the sole arbiter of what increases should he permitted and what should not. This is a completely arbitrary use of their powers under the Act. They may wish to take arbitrary powers, but we on this side do not like the use of arbitrary powers.
My second point concerns the period between the making of the Order and the time when the employees themselves decided to accept it. There was quite a distinct period. I understand that the employees met to decide what they should do about the Order and what its precise legal effect was. This involves turning to the Act itself, under which the Order was made. It is clear from Section 28(3) that, if the employers contravene the Section—if they do not comply with the Order—they are liable to a fine of an unlimited amount in the case of a body corporate. It was, therefore, clear to the employees that the penalty for the employers would have been very severe if they had disregarded the Order.
In considering compulsory powers, one must work through all foreseeable conclusions to see where the acquisition of such powers leads us. Let us try to do so in this case. If the employees had decided not to fall in with the Order, they would have been contravening Section 16(4) of the Act, which happens to be in Part II which is applied by Part IV to the Orders made under Part IV. This Section is couched in very wide terms:

If any trade union or other person takes, or threatens to take, any action, and in particular any action by way of taking part, or persuading others to take part, in a strike, with a view to compel, induce or influence any employer to implement an award or settlement in respect of employment at a time when the implementation of that award or settlement is forbidden under the foregoing provisions of this Part of the Act, he shall be liable—

(c) on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding one hundred pounds, and
(b) on conviction on indictment to a fine which, if the offender is not a body corporate, shall not exceed five hundred pounds."

That is couched in very wide terms. It is not limited merely to a strike but includes where a trade union or employee takes any action to influence the management for an increase.
I want to spend a few moments on this, because it is extremely wide. It would appear that these employees did consider whether they should take any action. They were supplied with copies of the relevant part of the Act and got proper advice. But, as the hon. Gentleman knows, a case has arisen in which the employees did not accept the Order which was made upon them under the Act, as a result of which the company, which observed the Order, has now gone out of business and the employees have found other jobs. This could have happened in the present case and we must therefore consider it, because it could have been one of the logical further consequences of the compulsory powers which the Act provided for the Government to take.
If the employees in this case had decided not to continue work on the furnaces, but had carried out all their other duties, I wonder if the Parliamentary Secretary would say if that would have been an action which would have rendered them liable to very heavy penalties under Section 16? The point arises here that, in the other case to which I refer, which is analogous in so many respects, the Government took no action at all against the employees. As the House knows, we on this side were against Part IV altogether and this was one of the reasons.
As a result, in the other case, of the employers observing the Order and no action being taken against the employees, the firm is temporarily out of business,


until the dispute is resolved and the employees have found other work. Can the Parliamentary Secretary say whether, if the people had not gone back to work on the furnaces, the Government would have intended invoking Section 16? This is obsolutely crucial to the powers that they have taken and to the continuation of those powers.
I have not the slightest doubt that both the Government and the Parliamentary Secretary hoped to goodness that they could get through without ever being asked the question, and without having to consider whether they would have to invoke it. It would have been better if they had considered it at the outset, as a number of hon. Members on both sides, did. [Interruption.] I am sure that the Parliamentary Secretary will try to answer this. Whether he will succeed is a different matter. Both the hon. Gentleman and I know that Parliamentary Secretaries have a lot of donkey-work to do and often cannot go as far as they would like to do in giving answers from the Dispatch Box. They are neither fish, flesh nor fowl and they have to do as they are told. That is just a friendly warning from one who has had to do it.
A further point that I wish to raise concerns the period of duration of the Order. If workers are to have nearly five years between the last increase and the possibility of an increase at all, they wish to be assured when the Order will terminate, and that no similar Order will be put in its place. As I read the Act, there are a number of possibilities, varying in accordance with the way in which the Government view the Act and what assurances they give. The average person, who has not read the Act, would believe that the period of severe restraint would end by 30th June. It may well be therefore that those to whom this Order applies imagine that from 1st July they will be free once again to apply for the increases and will be free to get them, to the extent of 2s. 3d. an hour. The Parliamentary Secretary can revoke this, and the revocation is to be operative from 1st July. He has powers to do so in the Act.
The second possibility is that the Order could continue for the whole of the duration of compulsory powers, in other words until 11th August, 1967, which

would be substantially beyond the end of the period of severe restraint. A third possibility is that the Order could be continued indefinitely, because the Government decided to prolong Part IV or to substitute something for Part IV which would have the effect of prolonging the Order.
I should like to know when this is going to end. I do not expect that the Parliamentary Secretary can tell us, but these men ought to know, if they have accepted this Order, along with their employers. I am thinking of all employers and employees, of which this case is an example, because they in this period are negotiating pay for the next period. I sometimes think that if we had in the Government more people who had employed people on their own account, we should probably have had a greater understanding of the differences to which the period of standstill and of severe restraint can lead, not knowing what will happen during the coming July.

Sir Harmar Nicholls: If the Parliamentary Secretary cannot tell my hon. Friend when it will end, perhaps he may be able to go so far as to say when he thinks that somebody will be in a position to say when he thinks it will end and the date the statement will be made.

Mrs. Thatcher: I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary, having heard what my hon. Friend has said, has taken the hint. If he cannot make a general statement, he should give an indication by reference to the Order, because it is this Order which we are discussing.
My first point about the Order is that it concerns the smallest number of workers which have yet been the subject of a special Order. It means that the Government will be quite willing to make an Order for, perhaps, simply one or two workers. It means that whatever their intention may have been when they introduced the compulsory Part IV, they are now willing to use it even in individual cases if necessary.
The Parliamentary Secretary will tell me that there would have been repercussions if he had not introduced the Order. The first thing that every permanent official teaches every new Parliamentary Secretary is all about repercussions. The hon. Gentleman will probably tell me


that if the Order had not been brought in, there would have been repercussions to the process workers at the plant, repercussions from that plant to another owned by the same company—I see that his back benchers are already nodding even though I have not got to the end of the repercussions. He will say that there would have been repercussions from that company to the whole of the glass industry, from that industry to the whole building industry, and so on. There are always repercussions in Parliamentary Secretaries' lives. This could perhaps have been foreseen when the powers were taken.
I doubt very much whether there is any hope of deflecting the Government from their course of compulsion for the time being. I hope that they will not ultimately persist upon that course of compulsion, because—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Sydney Irving): Order. The hon. Lady is now discussing the whole of the Government's economic policy in this matter, and that is out of order on this Motion.

Mrs. Thatcher: It is possibly in order, Mr. Deputy Speaker, if I relate it to the Order. I hope that the Order will terminate at the very latest on 11th August, 1967.
As the Parliamentary Secretary has probably gleaned, unless anything unforeseen happens there is not likely to be a vote on this matter tonight. I have tried to deal with it modestly in the hope that we might get some answers from the hon. Gentleman about his intentions concerning these 34 workers.

10.53 p.m.

Mr. John Biffen: I should like to say a few words in support and endorsement of the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Finchley (Mrs. Thatcher). Those of us who stay late at night to take part in the debates on the pettifogging and pathetic Orders which flow from the prices and incomes legislation do so with a degree of sadness and yet, I suspect, with a sense that we are participating in a debate which must touch upon some element of principle.
This evening, I ask myself what principle is implicit in the Order that we are discussing concerning these 34

employees at the Rockware Glass Company. It has been the argument hitherto that the Government would exercise these immense residual powers sparingly but selectively so that guidelines would be established which would enable the rest of industry to take note. It is an argument which I have never found particularly credible, particularly against the background of a deflationary economic policy which renders the whole of the interventionist prices and incomes legislation irrelevant, but none the less taken on the basis of establishing general principles through selective action.
We must ask ourselves what are these principles that have now been established under this Order applying to remuneration for maintenance work by employees of Rockware Glass Limited. It cannot surely be the principle that if one has waited for four years, then one is still too near to the time of one's last income increase. This is not the message which is being spelt out by this particular Order. Neither can it be the argument, surely, that the sum itself is so enormous as to create an unhappy precedent.
What worries me perhaps more than anything else is that here one is dealing with an occupation which is undoubtedly one involving unpleasant working conditions. Most of my industrial experience is in the Midlands, and I suppose there one thinks of the kind of foundry work done in the Black Country where often people work under very adverse physical circumstances. In areas such as this it has very often been most difficult to recruit indigenous workers, and it is to these areas that many immigrant workers have gone because this work is of such an unpleasant character.
We must ask ourselves very seriously whether the modest pay increase that was proposed for Rockware Glass employees does not touch on at least one element in the incomes structure where, if the Government were to lay down any guidelines, they would and should have been happy to have turned a blind eye. I am certain that if the full weight of Government intervention and the law is to be employed to try to maintain stability of wages in these extremely onerous and unpleasant working conditions, then we in Parliament may well be establishing exactly the


wrong kind of guidelines if we expect other people to be influenced by the decision we are asked to take tonight.
There are two other points I should like to make. At no time does it seem to me, in my understanding of the case history of this dispute, was there any attempt by the workers to put duress upon the employers. It was a settlement which was negotiated and agreed. Therefore, I do not believe one could for one moment sustain the argument that here were a small group of people holding the country—and perhaps implicitly the community—to ransom. So, here again, no guideline is created on that proposition.
The final thought I have, and which I put to the Parliamentary Secretary, is this. This Order was made during the period of standstill, but of course we are no longer in the period of standstill. As I understand it, the original agreement was made on 27th September. But ought we not now to re-examine and reinterpret this settlement in the light of the criteria of severe restraint? Is it the view of the Parliamentary Secretary that these people are no more deserving under the criteria of severe restraint than they were under the criteria of total standstill?
If that is the case, the 34 men whose pay we are debating tonight can well wonder if they have been singled out for treatment which was not offered to those who were the beneficiaries of the bonuses under the Acrow scheme. If they are of such a literary disposition as to read the Guardian newspaper, they will note today that, in an interview, the managing director of Acrow says that he has another bonus which he hopes to pay out.
It is precisely that kind of question, on a debate even as narrow as this, which raises the sort of principles which justify all the cynicism and doubt which we have about the social justice or economic sense of the Government's prices and incomes policy.

11.0 p.m.

Mr. Harold Walker: If my fellow A.E.U. workers at Rockware Glass read the report of this debate, they will share my astonishment at the support which they have received from the hon. Member for Finchley (Mrs. Thatcher) and the hon. Member for Oswestry (Mr.

Biffen). I share their hope that they can spread their understanding of the problems of the industrial worker to many more of their right hon. and hon. Friends.
The hon. Member for that white-hot crucible of industry, Oswestry, was quite right when he said that what the workers at that factory want to know now is how the criteria under which this Order was established modify the circumstances in which they find themselves in the period of severe restraint, and the important matter about which I want to ask my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary is when they will become eligible for the payment which has been agreed by the management of the factory. The significant point is that it was agreed by the employers and, in their eyes, was justified. Having had experience of negotiating with engineering employers, I know that if a case can be justified to them, it is justified—period.
The other question to which the workers at the factory want to know the answer is concerned with the period between 27th September, when the agreement was concluded, and 20th November, when the Order was made operative. Here I am in some doubt about what is meant in the Explanatory Note to the Order. I do not know whether it is correct, but my interpretation of the Order is that it is not retrospective and that the company should pay the amount outstanding in respect of that period, even if it is not to be paid after the 20th November.
I must confess that I find the Explanatory Note as confusing as that which it seeks to explain. If any right hon. or hon. Gentleman can explain that which it seeks to explain, I will gladly spend a few hours with him trying to understand it. "Gobbledygook" is a very moderate word to apply to sub-paragraph (3) of paragraph 4. I am as unable to understand that sub-paragraph as I am the Explanatory Note.
There is not only the question of interpretation. I would remind the House that, if we cannot understand it, how can we expect people, who are not lawyers, Parliamentarians or politicians and whose primary task it is to work with their hands, to understand such abstruse and obscure legal verbiage? Apparently they


were not given a chance to try to understand it, and I ask my hon. Friend to tell the House what machinery there is for informing the workers who are involved in such negotiations and decisions as are referred to in the Order of the making and issuing of such Orders. So far as I understand the position, my fellow A.E.U. workers at the factory await notification at first hand of the Order, and of the way in which it affects them. They learned about it from the Press. I rather doubt whether the employers learned of it from the Press, but these workers are directly involved, and they should, therefore, be notified.
It is incredible that we should be discussing this Order at the end of January, 1967. Those who went into the Lobby in support of the Act under which this Order has been made did so in the firm and certain belief that by this date the thing that we were voting for in Part IV would have faded into history. Nobody thought that at this time we would be in the period of severe restraint, and would have to consider the criteria by which lower-paid workers could receive an increase. Although by comparison with some of their fellow workers in the factory these men may not be considered to be among the lower paid, by golly, by contrast with salaries paid in this House, and in the professions, and to those at the apex of the industrial and social structure of this country they are very low-paid workers indeed.
It is astonishing that the majesty of the Mother of Parliaments has to assemble here at this hour to consider the kind of money that we are talking about in this case, the money paid to these 34 men for a normal week. Some of the people to whom I have referred can pick up this kind of money for a few minutes on television, or for writing a short article in a magazine. It all seems so fantastic. The sort of money that the country is spending at the moment could pay these workers for the next 12 months, and we could save the time of the House, and our time.
I hope that my hon. Friend will give these men a clear indication of when they will get this very small sum of money which, from all that I have heard, and from my own experience, I know that they deserve. I hope that my hon.

Friend will deal with the points that I have made: first, about the machinery for advising workers affected by Orders such as this. I hope that there will be precious few such Orders. Secondly, will the increase be applicable for the period between 27th September when the agreement was made, and 20th November when the Order was made operative? Thirdly, when can they look forward to some payment under their hard-won agreement?

11.8 p.m.

Mr. Peter Bessell: The whole history of this Order has been explained fully and clearly to the House by the hon. Lady the Member for Finchley (Mrs. Thatcher), and if I may say so without being impertinent, she put her case with great clarity and force.
Parliament is here assembled at this hour, nearly ten minutes past Eleven, to discuss a pay increase for 34 workers, and, as the hon. Member for Doncaster (Mr. Harold Walker) so rightly said, not only is the majority of Parliament being invoked for this purpose, but so also is the enormous power of the Government. What is the purpose behind this? It is to deny 34 men, who do a wholly unenviable task, an increase in wages from 1s. 10½,d. an hour to 2s. 3d. Parliament is being invoked for the express purpose of saving no more and no less than about 11s. or 12s. a week. If this were not so tragic it would be ludicrous.
I join with the hon. Lady in congratulating the Parliamentary Secretary upon his appointment. Every hon. Member will be glad to see him in his place at the Dispatch Box tonight. At the same time, he has a miserable and unenviable task ahead of him. Somehow or other he has to justify this Order, and I do not think he can do so in terms which are logical or acceptable to the House or to the people. If we were discussing a wage increase affecting 500,000 employees, or a matter affecting a large sum of money, the Government would be right to defend their prices and incomes policy, however much I might disagree with it. But in this case we are dealing with a matter of merely 34 men.
I know that I shall be told that there is a principle involved. That is the first reply that will be made. But it is the principle that worries me. Whatever the


political differences between hon. Members on this bench and hon. Members on the Government benches, there is one thing that we have in common—the fact that the history of our two parties was born of an overwhelming desire to set right injustice wherever it may occur. It is the proud history of the Labour Party that it grew from the working people who were subject to the gravest injustices and the most appalling hardships over the centuries. Their history is the history of the trade union movement, and to think that a Labour Government should tonight be keeping the House sitting—that Parliament should be present in session—in order to deny a matter of 11s. or 12s. a week to 34 workers, is not only ludicrous and tragic but something which the great movement which the Parliamentary Secretary has the honour to represent is likely to regret very deeply in the years ahead.

11.13 p.m.

Mr. Alexander W. Lyon: I have disagreed on numerous occasions with the hon. Member for Bodmin (Mr. Bessell), and tonight I take grave exception to the tone with which he addressed the House and the strictures which he cast upon the party of which I am a member. The hon. Member for Oswestry (Mr. Biffen) was in good form tonight, talking about this "trifling and pettifogging Order". He said, "Where is the principle?". Let me tell him the principle. Here, in this minute case, we have a cast iron example of what the Prices and Incomes Act is all about; why it is necessary, and why it was necessary, in order to guarantee justice and fair play for the vast majority of British workers.
They are only 34 men, yet they are only part of the number of men involved in similar agreements that were worked out by the A.E.U. and other glass manufacturing firms throughout the country. Other factories were also expecting a rise. In this case, the 34 workers would not accept the principles of the Prices and Incomes Act and would not do the work, unless the management paid the agreed rises, even though it was explained that the management were refusing to pay only because of the Act. They were alone in that. All the other workers—

Mr. Harold Walker: I would correct my hon. Friend. Maintenance workers employed by Rockware Glass in my constituency and elsewhere have felt just as resentful as the workers affected by the Order, but have not voiced their resentment. They have been mute.

Mr. Lyon: I am glad that my hon. Friend accepts my point. Though they were resentful elsewhere, they were mute, because they respected the law and the principle behind the prices and incomes policy. Although they may have felt it unfair and unnecessary to stop their increases, they did not take industrial action, unlike the 34 workers in this branch of the company, who decided that they knew better and would not work.
Inevitably, this caused difficulty in the firm. What would have happened if the Government had told the company that they would not trouble the House of Commons about this small number of men and that the men should be paid? Every other one of the company's employees eligible for such an increase would have applied for it. Every one with grounds for claiming a rise between June and December would have claimed it—

Mrs. Thatcher: Does the hon. Gentleman know how many had waited four years for an increase?

Mr. Lyon: I will come to that point.
There would have been some inevitable argument. Others would have said, "If the maintenance men on this job are doing it, so can we." The Government were right to exercise their powers over this limited group.
The hon. Lady asked how many have waited four years. Let us get it straight. What they have waited four years for was an increase in the increment for particular hot work. It was not a general wages increase. They had increments among the general mass of glass workers but had not had an increment for this kind of hot work.
The increment would have been 4½d. an hour, which amounted to only 2d. in the £ on the number of hours they worked. It was not as though they would get gloriously rich, like some of the people whom my hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster (Mr. Harold Walker) mentioned—barristers or Members of Parliament. It was such a small


increase that less hardship was caused by its denial than by the denial of some other increases frozen in July. There were these workers who had a much stronger case for an increase during the period of the complete freeze, and yet they accepted the freeze. They accepted that, in the interests of the nation, it was right that they should not have their increase. Why in the name of justice should these 34 men get even this small increase if we are to preserve any degree of equity?
This is the principle on which the incomes policy is based. We are trying to work out, perhaps for the first time in a democracy, and certainly in a democracy where we have such an intricate negotiating machinery as exists in this country, a fair distribution of increasing wealth between the workers, on the one hand, and the employers, on the other hand—and the consumer as the third party. Since the end of the war we have seen a rate race in which the powerful were getting bigger increases in their incomes.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Member is generalising the debate a little too much. He must return to the Order.

Mr. Lyon: I was trying to explain why the Order was so appropriate and far from the trifling and pettifogging matter suggested by one hon. Member.

Mr. Biffen: Is the hon. Member telling the House that his concept of social justice and economic sense in a period of severe restraint, as opposed to a period of standstill, is such that it is evident to him that these workers should have their wages frozen as increases are not justified under the criterion in the White Paper on severe restraint?

Mr. Lyon: I am not sure whether I should be in order if I answer the question, but I will try to do so. If we are to try to bring into this complicated wage structure and this complicated negotiating machinery this new element of fairness between worker and management, and to include the consumer, inevitably in this period in which this idea is being accepted by the community there will be inequalities and difficulties

in translating principles into action. We are coming into that period.
In respect of the Rockware Glass Company we are facing up to the difficulties in a period of severe restraint. There is a kind of rough justice in a period of complete freeze, when everybody is affected alike. We come now to the very difficult question of trying to select between groups of workers. Whether these workers come into a privileged group which should get their increase and hon. Members are in a group which should not get an increase is a simple question, but as between the workers in the Rockware Glass Company and another group of lowly-paid workers such as agricultural workers, there is great difficulty in translating the principle into action.
But what is the alternative to this Order in respect of the 34 workers? The alternative is surely a return to the free-for-all, and I am not in favour of the free-for-all. I know that the hon. Member for Oswestry is in favour of it, as the ablest lieutenant of the archpriest of the free-for-all. Unfortunately, the latter is not in his place tonight, but this is a classic case to discuss with the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell). Why did these 34 men take the law into their own hands?

Mr. Harold Walker: How is it suggested that they took the law into their own hands?

Mr. Lyon: These discussions took place. My hon. Friend went with most of us through the Lobby in support of the Prices and Incomes Act. When the Rockware Glass Company workers decided that they would use industrial action to get the increase which they demanded they were outside the law.

Mr. Harold Walker: Nonsense.

Mr. Lyon: Oh, yes, they were.

Mr. Walker: They did not go on strike or anything like that.

Mr. Lyon: Yes, in my view it comes within Section 16.

Mrs. Thatcher: Section 16 comes into operation only after an Order has been made. Until an Order was made they were within the law.

Mr. Lyon: Here we come to the crux of the matter. Thirty-four men were saying, "Why should we abstain from taking the increase which the management has agreed to give us?" One man said that it would be illegal. The hon. Lady disagrees with him. Another man said, "Of course it is not illegal. Look at this", and he produced a copy of a national newspaper in which there was a report of a speech by the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West. Using the language that the hon. Lady has used, it said, "It is absolute rubbish to suggest that there is anything illegal in getting a wage increase."
Accepting for a moment the niceties of what the hon. Lady says, the point that I am making is that none the less the right attitude for these men to have taken was the attitude taken by the rest of the workers in the Rockware Glass Company. The reason that these men did not take it was that they relied upon the interpretation of the Act which the hon. Lady has just given us and which the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West gave in his speech.
If this is technically correct, in my view it is not the right attitude to engender in relation to the incomes policy. If the hon. Lady is going to push it to these ends, what she means is that every group of workers should continue up to the point where the Government make an Order.

Sir Harmar Nicholls: It is obvious to everybody that the hon. Gentleman is struggling very badly now. He told the hon. Member for Doncaster (Mr. Harold Walker) that these men had acted illegally. In the light of what my hon. Friend the Member for Finchley (Mrs. Thatcher) has said, and despite the words that he has used since, does he still say that prior to the Order being made the men were acting illegally?

Mr. Lyon: I was speaking without the Act in front of me. But the hon. Gentleman is making the same mistake as the men working for the Rockware Glass Company. What we are talking about now is the technical nicety of whether one commits any illegal act either before the Order is made or after the Order is made. If I may carry the argument a stage further, I would point to the way in which the Act was designed,

in order to create a last resort for the Government in case anyone decided to act in his own interests irrespective of the interests of the rest of the community. The Government use this last resort only when they have to make an Order.

Mr. Bessell: Would it not have been far better to have let events take their course? If it snowballed and if hundreds or several thousands of workers were involved, there would be a very strong argument under the Government's present policy. Is it not very inequitable to pick out 34 workers who have a genuine case for needing—not wanting—an increase in salary?

Mr. Lyon: The hon. Gentleman completely fails to understand the point. Here we are discussing one Order which was made and which stopped a whole succession of claims which might have been put forward.

Mr. Bessell: Might.

Mr. Lyon: The hon. Gentleman is being naïve now. If he has not learned the industrial lessons of the last 20 years he must be the only Member in this House who has not done so. The lesson of the last 20 years has been that wherever there has been a wage increase in industry there have inevitably been other groups of workers within the same area who asked for an accompanying increase. This has gradually snowballed throughout the whole of industry. Of course, it could more easily be demonstrated by a large group of workers such as, for instance, a claim by the A.E.U. or by the railway workers. But it can equally be claimed that this was true of small groups of workers. This is the real reason that we need this kind of power.
Here is a classic case of the Rockware Glass Company employees—only 34 in number—who have said that they will challenge the authority of the Government and that they will elect to put their interests before the interests of the community at large. Whether they were right in saying that they were not doing anything illegal, whether the hon. Lady and the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West are right, the fact is that if every group of workers had acted in this way, there would have been no effective wage freeze at all. Everybody, even though he may have no


interest in this political argument, accepts that the wage freeze not only was desirable but has been successful in controlling the increase in costs in British industry.
I believe that far from going to the extent that the hon. Lady wants us to go in telling this group of workers, or any group of workers, that as from June of this year there will be a return to the free-for-all, we must establish some kind of continuing system which gives the long-stop to the Government—the long-stop such as is proposed in Part IV of the Act, and then perhaps something more flexible could be introduced. I believe that this Order is the very best argument that could be advanced for proceeding with some kind of statutory control.

11.33 p.m.

Sir Harmar Nicholls: The hon. Member for York (Mr. Alexander W. Lyon) was very pleasant in the way he presented his point of view, as he always is, but he disclosed himself on this occasion to be a man of paper. He gave me the impression—I may be wrong—that he is far removed from any direct contact with the practical atmosphere of the industries. Otherwise he could not have taken this narrow, legalistic line that he did.
The hon. Gentleman was somewhat contradictory in taking that line. He was taking the narrowest of lines. He said to his hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster (Mr. Harold Walker) as well as to my hon. Friends: "You ought to read the small print. It is all very well for you to make these generalisations, calling for general sympathy for this small group of men, but read the small print." When he accused those men of having acted illegally, and when he was put right by my hon. Friend, he called it splitting hairs and introducing niceties. If one is going to base an argument upon what is pretty well the small print—nothing to do with the general aim that the Government had in mind when the Prices and Incomes Act was brought in—one ought to follow it right the way through.
The hon. Member for Doncaster said that some members of his union would be surprised to know that this issue was

being raised from these benches. I would say that they would be surprised at his surprise that we had raised it. If there is one job which an Opposition should do, particularly an Opposition with the record which my party has, dating back to Lord Shaftesbury—and I do not know why the hon. Member for Bodmin (Mr. Bessell) should claim for his own party the credit due to both our parties when everything grew from what that Tory Lord Chancellor did—

Mr. Harold Walker: I expressed astonishment not that this issue was being raised, but at the support which hon. Members opposite were giving to shop stewards. We welcome that support, which makes a refreshing change from the kind of vituperative condemnation of shop stewards which we generally hear from hon. Members opposite.

Sir Harmar Nicholls: We always support stewards when they are right and when they act reasonably.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. We must not move away from the Order and into a general debate.

Sir Harmar Nicholls: I add my congratulations to the Parliamentary Secretary on his appointment. I sat in his place for five years, too long to be a Parliamentary Secretary. He wants to get into the Cabinet long before that, or he will find that life is not worth living. He has the unenviable task tonight, for his first job at the Dispatch Box, of defending this Order.
I ask through him why the Government have made things difficult for themselves. One understands the general reasoning behind the Prices and Incomes Act. The general view was that it was all right, but the Government ought to have known that in applying it in detail they would have to use a great deal of discretion. I cannot imagine a case which would bring the Act more into contempt and which would make people want to ignore the Act and the good ideas behind it than the case which is the subject of the Order.
My hon. Friend the Member for Finchley (Mrs. Thatcher) and the hon. Member for Bodmin were absolutely right to emphasise the size of the issue. It concerns 34 men and increases of from is. 10d. to 2s. 21½d. a week for


a group of men who have not had increases for four years and who, if the Order goes the full term, will not have had increases for five years. The Government could not be on weaker ground.
I do not agree that there would have been the chain reaction which the hon. Member for York mentioned. I can well understand that we have to keep in mind the dangers which can flow from a chain reaction, and over the years we have seen this leap-frogging when we have given way at one point and so many others have come along. When bringing in legislation for the general good, it is right that the Government should be alert to the importance of not giving way at a point where to do so would be to cause a chain reaction.
But I am certain that with the justice behind this case at the time there would not have been such a chain reaction. Even if there had been such a reaction, the Government would have been showing good sense and would have been applying the main provision of the Act with ability if they had waited until it got to that point at which it was significant and where the leap-frogging was reaching the point at which it endangered the nation.

Mr. Alexander W. Lyon: Where does one draw the line in a period of complete freeze? I can see that room for discretion must be left in a period of severe restraint and that there would have to be room for discretion if this legislation were to continue permanently, but where is the line drawn in a period of complete freeze so that everyone feels that justice is being done?

Sir Harmar Nicholls: It is not easy to answer that with the question put so specifically. My charge is that the Government have not shown themselves able to decide where the line should be drawn. Wherever else was right to draw it, this was not the point, involving as it does 34 men who have not had increases for four years and whose increase had been agreed with and not pushed on to the employers.
I concede that if the matter had reached the point where the chain reaction that the hon. Member said was such a danger was likely to start, then was the time for an Order, and to take

the stand. One of the jobs of government is to make unpalatable legislation as palatable as possible. That is the only way the Government will deal with the problem of trying to get the prices and incomes situation back on a sound basis. When all the powers of legal sanction that the hon. Member had in mind are used at the wrong time, the whole of the Government's intentions are brought into disrepute and the chance of getting the effects they want are immediately weakened.

Mr. James Tinn: I apologise for not being able to be present during the whole debate. I have listened with keen interest to the remarks of the hon. Member for Peterborough (Sir Harmar Nicholls). It seems to me that he is rather quarrelling over the drawing of the line on a marginal basis, conceding that it is not possible to say exactly where it should be drawn. After conceding the disputability of exactly where the line should be drawn, surely he will also concede the massive success so far of the period of absolute restraint on wage increases? Does he not consider that to quibble over the marginal drawing of the line is rather ungenerous, considering the magnitude of the crisis?

Sir Harmar Nicholls: We are at present discussing a particular Order. I cannot express the same pleasure as the hon. Member for Cleveland (Mr. Tinn) on the country's general economic health. We are not out of the wood yet, and I do not yet feel like throwing my hat in the air. Whether the hon. Gentleman will be able to sustain his satisfaction depends on how the Government use their judgment on the next period of restraint. That will confirm whether the joy expressed in the hon. Gentleman's question has a sound basis. If they do not show sounder judgment on that important stage than they show on this, I do not think that the hon. Member will get the pleasure he wants from the eventual result.
We shall not vote on this—my hon. Friend made that perfectly clear.

Mr. Bessell: Why not?

Sir Harmar Nicholls: The Liberal Party is here in force. I do not know what might happen. Until a minute or two ago it did not look likely that we should have a vote.
We think that it should be underlined as firmly as we can that this is not only a matter of introducing legislation, however well based, but also of judgment and good sense in applying it. In the present instance, I do not think that that judgment has been shown.
Even now, the Government could revoke the Order. They could say that it was made in the period of standstill, and I concede that it is more difficult to use the discretion for which I ask during that period. It is much easier now to revoke it for the group of men concerned, who have the strength of their case behind them. We could then see whether there was the chain reaction the hon. Gentleman suggested or whether men in industry recognised that discretion had been used properly in this case.

Mr. Alexander W. Lyon: The point made by the hon. Member a number of times is that the Order displays bad judgment by the Government. Would he not agree that the very restricted number of Orders the Government have been called on to make shows that they exercised good judgment in making this class of Order in particularly difficult circumstances, and thereby restricting the number or Orders that needed to be made?

Notice taken that 40 Members were not present;

House counted, and, 40 Members not being present, adjourned at 12 minutes to Twelve o'clock till Tomorrow.